Seluke's Movie Reviews

Paul

2011-03-30T03:25:00.001-03:00

Have you ever invited someone out to a social event, you know, someone really cool? Maybe you hadn't seen that person in while and you were really looking forward to just kicking back and sharing some laughs. Then when they show up they've brought four or five of their really annoying friends with them. And what you want to say "you can come in but these losers have to take a hike." Of course you don't do that for two very important reasons: (1) The unspoken rules of polite society forbid it and (2) Unlike me, there's an excellent chance you're not a major league A-hole.

I separate myself from the rest of you because I feel like I should be able to say "you losers go take a hike". And nowhere did I feel that urge stronger than sitting through a screening of Paul. I loved the title character but was either bored or annoyed by the cast of characters who surround him.

Paul is the latest offering from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who previously gave us Shaun of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007), and Run Fatboy Run (2007). In Shaun and Hot Fuzz, they succeeded in providing a fresh and cutting send up of some much loved movie genres. Here they try to do the same thing with the Speilberg/Lucas fanboy cannon. Pegg and Frost play Grahame and Clive, two British sci-fi fans who travel to the US to attend Comic-Con and take a tour of the famous UFO sites of the American Southwest. So how fitting that while out on the highway at night, they see a car go off the road in front of them and upon further investigation, discover Paul, a foul-mouthed slacker alien. The guys take Paul in their RV and their road adventure has officially begun.

Right away, I like Paul and find him very funny. When he's on the screen, I find myself enjoying this movie quite a bit. The problem is, when he's not on the screen, the movie begins to suffer almost immediately. The reason for this begins with the two human leads in the film.

The great thing about doing a genre spoof is you are able to use shorthand with the characters. Two sci-fi fans at Comic-Con? Got it. Say no more. We know who these guys are. Socially awkward, uncomfortable with women, terrible fashion sense. But because we are so familiar with those archetypes, unless you give us something fresh and interesting about them, we will get bored very quickly with them and sadly that is what happened here. Outside of generic sci-fi geeks, I can't tell you anything noteworthy about these characters.

Even more problematic for me was Ruth Buggs, the love interest for Graeme played by SNL's Kristen Wiig. Wiig is very convincing in the role of a sheltered fundamentalist Christian whose abhorrence for all things scientific should be a nice contrast for Paul. Now there is lots of room for satire and sharp commentary in the debate between science and religion. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't engage in any of that. The filmmakers seem to want to suggest that Paul's existence nullifies everything Ruth once believed so now she is free to drink, swear, and get stoned. I don't think I can end the debate but I don't see why we can't live in a world where Darwin's principles and intelligent design can co-exist. Why can't we have aliens and God (in whatever form you believe He takes: God, Yaweh, Oprah) peacefully co-existing? By portraying Christians as all slack jawed idiot Yokels, this movie really took a misstep for me.

Perhaps the biggest misstep involved the character development or lack thereof. SPOILER ALERT – There is a scene at the end where Paul tells the guys. "So I guess we learned a bunch of valuable stuff about being true to ourselves and all that crap." This is supposed to be a clever way of pointing out that they haven't really learned anything or changed for having gone through this journey. We are almost supposed to feel like that kind of character growth is a lame device of movies of yesteryear. But I wanted to scream at the screen 'If you have actually learned something about yourself for going through the journey, there might have been a satisfying ending. The majority of the plot involves them being chased by the authorities. That could provide some genuine character development but does not here.

I should point out that there are some genuine laughs in this film. Seth Rogen is great providing the bite behind Paul's personality. And the guys do a nice job of referencing all the big blockbuster movies of the 70's 80's and 90's including a Titanic reference that was very clever. But in the end there was too many lost opportunities for this movie to work as well as it should have.

I loved seeing Paul on the screen. I just wanted to tell the other characters to go take a hike. They're ruining my quality hang with my good friend Paul. I can say that because, don't forget, I'm a major league A-hole.

Or at least, that's what I'm constantly told.

The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-09T15:13:00.007-04:00

We used to play a game in university that would entertain us until the wee hours of the morning. Whenever there was a lull in the conversation or a collective sense of boredom was achieved, somebody would throw out a crazy hypothetical.

"Would you rather be immersed in a bathtub full of live cockroaches or dive into a pool of tobacco spit." And with it, another round of "Would You Rather" was underway.

This game is endless fun for two main reasons (1) It can be adjusted to whatever level of appropriateness you desire. For children it could be…Would you rather have a superpower or have Christmas never end? Ours always seemed to be a choice between two of the most disgusting situations imaginable.

And this brings me to the second reason why this game is so much fun: (2) You have to choose one of the options. You don't get to say "Those are gross! I'm not doing either." As soon as that is an option, the whole point to the game is lost. You have to make a difficult, if nauseating, choice.

After watching The Adjustment Bureau, I feel like writer/director George Nolfi ether never played "Would You Rather" in college or if he did, he cheated.

The Adjustment Bureau is an adaptation of The Phillip K. Dick short story "The Adjustment Team". Dick's short stories have served as the base for other sci-fi thrillers like Blade Runner (1982), Total Recall (1990) and Minority Report (2002). This movie, like its predecessors has a very Dickish feel to it. (Sorry but I don't know what the "Dickensian" equivalent is to Phillip K Dick)

It tells the story of young U.S Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) on the eve of his first U.S. Senate election. Norris comes off as a typical movie protagonist politician: Bright, sincere, and likeable. Sadly though, not likable to win this time around. As he is in a hotel bathroom practicing his concession speech, he is shocked to see a beautiful young woman emerge from one of the stalls. This is Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) who is hiding from hotel security after crashing a wedding in the hotel. Though their encounter is brief, there is clearly amazing chemistry between them and it ends with a passionate kiss.

Of course this was only supposed to be a one-time chance encounter. So when Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie), a fedora wearing guardian angel type falls asleep on the job and allows David to get on a bus he was never supposed to be on, trouble ensues. Elise is on that bus and when they meet up again, it becomes clear they are very close to falling madly in love with each other. It is now time for the Adjustment Bureau to launch into action.

David arrives at his work to find his coworkers in the boardroom in suspended animation getting their brains scanned by a man we know only as Richadson (Mad Men's John Slattery). A chase ensues and they reluctantly have to tell David what is going on. They are a team that ensures that everything happens according to the grand plan. When something happens to threaten the design of the plan, they step in and make sure things get back on track. Richardson explains that tiny things like a dropped cell phone call or somebody missing a flight because they can't find their keys could be chance but are more likely the work of the Adjustment Bureau. They tell David that Elise is not part of his plan and he is to forget about her and not tell anyone about what he knows.

Right here this movie sets up some really interesting material. There is no end to the debate on free will versus pre-destiny and David is right in the middle of that debate. Also, many people believe that everything happens for a reason and there are greater forces out there affecting our lives in ways we are not aware of. So right here the movie has me with an interesting set-up and a rich thematic canvas on which to paint.

Flash ahead to three years later and while taking that same bus as before, David again sees Elise walking down the street. He chases after her and explains that the reason he didn't call before because he lost her number. Not really a lie since Richardson burned the card with her number on it so David couldn't call. They go for lunch and we can see them falling in love all over again. Much to the chagrin of the Adjustment Bureau.

What follows next is a lot of cat and mouse games with the Bureau guys using their magic powers to try to keep David from being with Elise. But where it gets even more interesting is when they bring in someone higher up on the team, Thomson (Terrance Stamp) the one they call "The Hammer". Thompson tells Norris that his destiny is to become President and change the world in a positive way. Elise's destiny is to become a professional dancer and then a famous choreographer. But it they get together, neither of those destinies will come to be and she will wind up teaching dance to six year-olds for the rest of her life.

Now this is where I think the film is at its most gripping. They have brilliantly set up a scenario where the protagonist has to make a life defining choice. And something of a Sophie's choice at that. I give Nolphi along with Damon and Blunt full credit for making the chemistry between the characters feel very authentic. You love seeing them together on the screen and you can't help but want to see them together in the end.

So this is why the predicament is so tough for David Norris. Should he put his personal desires ahead of the positive change he can affect on the world stage? And does he have a right to take away her future without her ever knowing what the implications are? In short, he is engaging in the ultimate game of would you rather.

Would You Rather spend the rest of your life with your true love or you both enjoy the ultimate career success for the rest of your lives?

And this is the point where a flawlessly executed fantasy thriller completely falls apart for me. Without giving away the specific ending, it's safe to say Nolphi lets his character wriggle out of choosing one or the other. And in doing so, completely undoes the great work up until this point. I felt like we needed to see what choice he makes and if he is able to make peace with it. But he violated the key rule of would you rather by not making his guy stick to one and only one of those choices.

In fairness to Nolphi, I know that the ending was reshot after an early test screening. If they went with the Hollywood ending after the more difficult ending didn't play, that could explain the choice. Even still, it stands out to me a huge missed opportunity. This movie is well paced, fun, interesting and overall very enjoyable. It just comes completely unravelled in the third act.

So should you go see this movie? Well let me ask you this. Would you rather pay $12 to see a movie with an ending that stays true to its premise or pay $12 to see a fairly enjoyable movie that sells out big time to the Hollywood ending?

You have to decide.

Hall Pass

2011-03-06T02:51:00.003-04:00

I'll let you in on a little secret. Screenwriters may appear shy and unassuming but we can become consumed by jealousy greater than that of any three real housewives of Orange County combined. Our obsession is the one sentence high concept pitch that is both crystal clear and loaded with comedic potential. When a screenwriter sees a trailer for one of these ideas, he spits out his popcorn, slaps his forehead and involuntarily blurts out "Why didn't I think of that?"

Only two films in the past five years have made me do just that. The first was Ricky Gervais' "The Invention of Lying" and most recently, the Farrelly Brothers' "Hall Pass". The latter being a movie about a couple of married guys whose wives give them a one week hall pass from their marriage.

Because it is one of those great concepts, there was a lot pressure on the Brothers Farrelly to not screw it up. Sure, these guys delivered the comedy classics Dumb and Dumber (1996) and There's Something About Mary (1998). But let's not forget that they are also responsible for Stuck on You (2003) Fever Pitch (2005) and The Heartbreak Kid (2007). No question over the past decade, they've had more misses than hits.

Part of the Farrelly's challenge is their recipe for comedy is a delicate balance of gross out scenes with sincerity and sweetness. They can get away with the Cameron Diaz hair gel scene in Mary because we root for Ben Stiller to win over the great unrequited love of his life. If that balance is off just a bit, we end up with Shallow Hal (2001). In Hall Pass, they again seem to have the balance just right.

In Hall Pass, they present us with two best friends Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) who have seemingly happy marriages but can't hide their wandering eyes. Part of it is their delusional belief that if they were single, they would be picking up all the time. The other part is neither of them is getting as much action on the home-front as they'd like. Fred's way of dealing with this frustration and how it backfires on him is almost worth the price if admission by itself.

So after Rick's wife Maggie (Jenna Fisher) gives him the one week hall pass, Fred's wife Grace (Christina Applegate) follows suit. And with the premise cleared, we launch full into Act Two and this is where the movie stumbles a bit for me. Of course the guys can't succeed right away and I anticipate the epic fails as they set off on this adventure. The problem for me is too much time is spent on them avoiding trying to pick up women. There is a whole sequence of them stoned on a golf course that seems to be there for no other reason than the sand trap sight gag.

And just as I'm about to file this in the "Stuck On You" category of failed execution, something really interesting happens. They start to explore the opportunities the wives have with this week of hall pass. Maggie and Grace go away to a resort town where a baseball team is wrapping up their season. The older coach is crushing on Maggie while the early 20's baseball stud is hot for Grace. What makes this interesting is we don't know exactly where this story development is heading. We believe that the wives could easily be successful if they wanted something to happen. But would they?

Whereas the guy's scenario was a little more predictable. There were many failed and clueless attempts to find a woman who will sleep with them. To be honest, that section of the movie is mostly forgettable. I thought things really picked up when it became more about what the wives were doing while away and the developing relationship between Rick and Leigh (Nicky Whelan), his favourite coffee barista. When it stopped being about forced comedy and more about the temptation of this one beautiful young woman who is not your wife, it started to feel more authentic. I feel like the last 30 minutes saved the movie from the previous 30 minutes.

Wilson and Sudeikis are both charming and likeable in these roles. They are able to play the comedy for big laughs when necessary and give the touching emotional speech when required as well. The breakout star of this movie is Whelan who did a nice job of portraying the sexy temptress while still having a likeable girl-next-door quality to her.

This is by no means a great movie but I do believe it is a good comedy. It has enough big laughs with the gross-out humour to satisfy long time fans of the Farrely's. And the emotional storyline is sufficiently sweet and competent. This movie has both a nice zinger of a last line and end credits bonus that helps to end it on a high note.

So if you are looking for a model for your high concept broad comedy with heart, this is not a bad one to look at. And if you are working on such a script, best of luck with it. I hope it goes well.

But don't let me find out about it. Or I will destroy you!

A Solemn Promise To The Readers of Seluke’s Movie Reviews

2011-03-04T21:49:00.002-04:00

It has been exactly half a year since I last posted a review on this blog. It was September 5^th and how I long for those innocent carefree days. You see I got caught up in living the lifestyle of a screenwriter in Canada. It's all dom perignon for breakfast and lighting up Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills after lunch. It was la dolce vita and I was enjoying every minute of it.

"Who cares if the needs of my faithful readers weren't being attended to," I would often wonder aloud. "What could possibly go wrong?"

And then it happened.

I'll never forget the chills that came over me when I heard the phone ring. I didn't know who was on the other end of that phone, I just knew it wasn't good. I picked up the phone and braced myself for the worst. Even still, I wasn't prepared for what I was about to hear.

"Tony, it's Bruce. I just saw 'How Do You Know?'"

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" I cried out. "How did this happen?"

"It was Paul Rudd in a James L. Brooks film. The same guy who did "As Good As It Gets" he explained.

"But that movie sucks," I told him. "It redefines the term "unwatchable".

And I'll never forget the words he said next…"I wish you would have told me that four hours ago."

He was right. It was all my fault.

I wish I could tell you Bruce recovered from seeing that steaming pile of dogcrap, but we all know better. For the rest of his life he will be a broken shell of the man he once was. And all because I wasn't there to prevent it.

So I make this solemn promise to you all. I will never leave you again. I will post a review every week from now until the time they stop making movies. And after How Do You Know, that may be sooner than you think.

Never again will I allow my awesome lifestyle get in the way of my duties as a movie reviewer. With great power comes great responsibility…to make sure nobody EVER sees How Do You Know and others of its ilk.

Tomorrow I will be posting a review of Hall Pass. After that, I will post at least once per week, often allowing you to choose the movie you want reviewed. Together we can prevent another tragedy like the one that happened to Bruce.

As for what can be done to help Bruce, his only wish is that you all send me lots of money in the…wait…hold on…my lawyers inform me I am not legally permitted to ask you to send me money in the mail.

So I won't.

Wink wink.

The American

2010-09-05T18:59:00.003-03:00

Some movie titles are fairly self-explanatory. Nobody went into Dude Where's My Car expecting to see a subtle yet complex commentary on the human condition. Showgirls was also one of those titles that pretty much tipped its hand as to what kind of movie-going experience you were about to get. But when I saw the title The American, I was puzzled. What exactly was this movie going to be? Would be a movie about:

A guy who couldn't pick out his home state on a map?
A guy who believes Barrack Obama is really a secret Muslim
A guy who is convinced we (Canadians) all live in igloos and take sled dogs to work
A guy who could name all the cast members of Jersey Shore but not one Supreme Court Justice.

Of course, it wasn't any of those movies (although I am actively pitching two of them). In fact, this movie was nothing like I thought it would be. It was slow, methodical, nuanced, character rich, and unpredictable. When compared to other Hollywood Studio Films, it would be considered...well... un-American.

The American tells the story of Jack, a seasoned veteran of the spy world played by George Clooney. In the opening scene we see Jack spending some quality time with a lady friend in a remote winter cabin in Sweden. Snipers try to take Jack out but he manages to foil the hit and get away to fight another day. Of course we see what Jack must do to ensure his safety and we are instantly acutely aware of just how high the stakes are in Jack's world.

Director Anton Corbijn has a background in stills photography and this is evident from the very first image in the screen. This film is set in Sweden and Italy and the aesthetics in this film are magnificent. But at the same time, Corbijn is able to make the danger and suspense feel real. This isn't like a Bond film where we are aware we are watching a popcorn film. This movie feels more like a documentary crew followed an international covert hitman for a while. The tension is real and visceral.

This is especially true when Jack takes up residence in Italy for a few months. He is given a cell phone and other gear by his contact/handler but Jack doesn't keep it. He is suspicious about how he was found in Sweden and now can't trust even those who were his closest allies. But without certainty that they are working against him, he takes a job assisting a female hitman. Hitwoman? Hitperson? Assassin! She needs a special compact sniper rifle and Jack's job is to build it for her.

At this point in the film, I kept waiting for the pace and action to ramp up. Certainly there must be double-crosses and high speed highway chases coming but alas, they did not. See what I mean about refreshing? The majority of this storyline involves Jack collecting materials, building and testing this custom made sniper rifle. The other major storyline involves Jack's budding relationship with an Italian prostitute he visits named Carla played by the very beautiful Italian actress Violante Placido. Two things I could tell about this actress right off the top: she is very charming on screen and her agent has never heard of a no-nudity clause.

Very slowly and very methodically, these two storylines start to come together. Jack is becoming more and more suspicious about this job he is doing while at the same time, his relationship with Carla goes from professional to authentic. And while he wants to believe she is really falling for him, he can't allow himself to be taken in by her. Though he never says it aloud, we are thinking the exact same thing he is – could she be a spy plotting his assassination. What this film does exceptionally well is allowing these suspicions to fester without being ham-fisted about it. Yes there are some things that seem off but they are also easily explained. So what is the truth? The audience's frustration exactly mirrors what Jack must feel every moment of his life. We get a taste of what it is like never knowing if we can believe what is unfolding in front of our very eyes.

Methodical as it may be, this film does build to a climax where both storylines are resolved. We finally find out what is real and what is not. But again, even though there final confrontations and cat and mouse chases, it still feels very muted. The best sequence in the movie comes when Jack delivers the rifle to the hit-…assassin. Here is another great cat and mouse scene except we're never really sure who is the cat and who is the mouse.

This is a movie that is not for everyone. If you need the MTV style of lots of action, lots of smash cuts to hold your attention, this movie is not for you. However if you want a refreshing change and a well told, if understates suspense piece, you should see this movie.

But don't be fooled by its title. With a Dutch director, methodical story space, frequent nudity, and lack of explosions, what are you really seeing?

The European.

Tomorrow’s Review is Reader’s Choice

2010-09-02T11:59:00.001-03:00

There are two new movies opening up Friday: (1) Going the Distance, a Drew Barrymore and Justin Long Romantic Comedy. (2) The American, a George Clooney movie which I assume is about a guy who couldn't identify France on a world map. Or it could be a romantic spy drama but that seems unlikely. I would also entertain votes for Machete.

Which one will I see and review? That's up to you. Vote for your choice either in the comments section below or on the Facebook page for Seluke's Movie reviews. Whichever movie gets the most votes will be reviewed.

Act now. Operators are standing by.

The Last Exorcism

2010-09-01T00:18:00.009-03:00

Here's something you may not know about me – I only really hate three things in this world: old people, puppies, and scary movies. It's true. I hate scary movies. Always have; always will.

I just don't enjoy the experience of being frightened or startled. I find it unpleasant and I don't know why people pay $12 for the experience. Needless to say, I have never been a big fan of the horror movie genre. I find these movies fall into one of two categories of unpleasantness: (1 )Stupid people doing stupid things resulting in a stupid movie (See any slasher franchise) or (2) Genuinely frightening (The Exorcist, Amityville Horror, It). The second category tends to involve supernatural thrillers involving demons or evil spirits and this invariably freaks me out for a good two to three weeks after seeing it.

So when my colleagues at CBC Information Morning assigned The Last Exorcist as our next on air review, I knew I was in for another unpleasant movie-going experience. And that's exactly what I got. What I didn't know however, was why. I thought it would be a category 2 situation but instead turned into category 1. This is remarkable considering how great this movie started out.

The Last Exorcist takes the form of a mockumentary that follows Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), a huckster country preacher who is more showman than man-of-God. His greatest talent as a showman is faking exorcisms. He still believes he is doing a good deed because if the people truly believe they have had demons cast out of them, they can go on living their lives.

But after he reads about a young boys death while having an exorcism performed on him, he has decided that he is getting out of that racket for good. But not before he exposes it for the smoke-and-mirrors con game that he knows it to be. So he's decides he's going to do one more phony exorcism and let a camera crew follow him, documenting the key parts of scam as he goes along. The case involves a 16 year-old girl named Nell (Ashley Bell) who appears to suffer from demonic possession. This will be Cotton's last exorcism.

What director Daniel Stamm has done beautifully here is set up a con-man-about-to-meet-the-real-thing story where we genuinely sympathize with the con man. We believe Cotton is basically a decent man who is performing a service for people who want it. He's simply trying to provide for his family, at one point saying "I used to wish for my own evangelical TV program but right now I'd just like to have health insurance."

So Cotton and his team meet Nell, her uber-fundamental, father Louis (Louis Herthum) and overly intense brother Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones). Cotton goes through his whole routine, faking bed shaking and shrieks as he does his act. He believes it to be a success and when he finishes counting his thick wad of bills for another job well done, he goes back to the hotel for a good night's sleep.

And this is where Cotton's plan goes awry.

Nell shows up at Cotton's motel in the middle of the night only she's not quite Nell. She's nowhere near the head-spinning, pea-soup puking girl that Linda Blair portrayed in the 1973 classic. But there is clearly something not right with this Nell. What Cotton does next is very telling. Instead of assuming genuine possession, he rushes her to the hospital assuming there must be something physically wrong with her. At his core, he still believes in secular explanations.

At this point, this film has my complete and undivided attention. It has set up a beautiful two part narrative question: is Nell really suffering from demonic possession and if so, can the con man summon enough genuine faith to save her? Very few movies have so skilfully set up the second half of the movie for what has to be a rich and rewarding payoff. The only thing that is missing in this film is a rich and rewarding payoff.

Without going into too many plot points, the movie never fully realizes its potential in the con man vs. real demons story. There is one brief scene in the barn where the demon seems to make an appearance and taunts Cotton for his lack of faith. But it never goes any further than that.

MAJOR SPOLIER WARNING HERE!!!!

The entire third act feels like it was stolen from The Blair Witch Project (1999). It involves lots of shaky-cam POV shots as they run through the woods trying to identify the location of certain screams. And when they stumble upon the source of the screams, the movie rushes to a lightning fast and unsatisfying ending. The filmmakers thought they were executing a nice reveal but in going out of their way to deliver this twist reveal, they abandoned what was working so well before. This ending doesn't answer either of the fundamental story questions addressed above.

Was she really possessed? This question becomes moot when you see the ending of this movie. Does Cotton find his genuine faith? Again, never answered and not relevant in this ending. So bottom line, this movie fails miserably in delivering on the promise of its set up.

It's a shame too because there was a lot to like in this film. Fabian and Bell were riveting in their scenes together. These were two really solid performances that sadly went to waste.

But at least the movie confirmed my long-held belief that I don't enjoy scary movies. As for the other things I mentioned off the top, I was just joking.

I don't hate puppies.

Piranha 3D

2010-08-28T14:09:00.006-03:00

People come up to me all the time and ask "Tony, why do write your blog?" Is it for the money, the women, the overwhelming sense of machismo? And each time, I look them straight in the eye and say the exact same thing – "How dare you talk to me." Then, having sufficiently scolded them, I go on to answer their question. "No, the reason I write this blog is for the same reason anyone writes a blog – to save lives."

And lately it has come time my attention that there is a clear and present danger that threatens our summer fun. This threat can turn an innocent beachside wet T-shirt contest into a bloody, gory massacre in minutes. This threat is of course, prehistoric piranhas which were trapped in a subterranean lake and recently released after seismic activity created a portal to the earth's surface. It's a story as old as time.

But after watching Alendre Aja's Piranha in 3D, I feel like I am now something of a piranha survival expert. And since being attacked by these prehistoric killers is a matter of when and not if, I feel like it is my duty to once again use my writing to save lives. Here is EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SURVIVING A PREHISTORIC PIRANHA ATTACK.

Piranhas, like early 80's slasher villains, have a very strict moral code. I can't be sure what denomination they are (Could be Lutherans but I'm thinking Methodists) but piranhas will not stand for consuming alcohol, dancing suggestively to hip hop music, foul language, or premarital relations of any kind. And what they really hate is public nudity. One can only assume that being trapped in a subterranean lake for millions of years has given them time to develop a very strong moral code. In any event, it seems that if you engage in any kind of risqué behaviour, you will be devoured by piranhas. Only the good will survive. So if you're Billy Joel, surviving a piranha attack may seem counter-intuitive.
You're going to need a bigger boat. The opening scene of the movie features a character named Matt who looks a lot like the Matt from another monster-in-the-water movie. This Matt is fishing in the middle of the lake when he his flung from his boat and devoured by a pack of piranha's. We learn right away that piranhas hunt in packs. Not unlike those douche bags on Jersey Shore. And because they attack in such great numbers no small watercraft will keep you safe. Many times people tried to flee in small boats and every time they wound up eaten. To be really safe you want to make sure you are on something the size of a cruise ship. Just make sure it's not a celebrity cruise ship or you might encounter the only thing worse than prehistoric piranha – those douche bags from Jersey Shore.
Hand-to-hand combat is not recommended when fighting piranhas. This may seem like common sense but too many characters perished by trying to fight off the piranhas with blunt instruments with not much success. You could be like the Ving Rhames character and find yourself grabbing an outboard motor and using the propeller as a weapon. This could have been successful but Ving made the classic mistake of yelling "Choke on this Motherf**kers" as he was fighting them. As we established in survival tip #1, piranhas don't care much for the salty talk. Sadly, there was only one way this was going to end and this is the last we saw of Ving.

Look, I could go on but I think you get the point. The truth is that developing a survival strategy against prehistoric piranhas is really the only reason to go see this movie. I was hoping for so much more and found myself underwhelmed when I left the theatre. Not because there was too much cheese and gore but rather because there was not enough cheese and gore.

I thought this was going to be a throwback to the old drive in 3D monster movies. It would be wall to wall, over the top scenes of killer piranhas attacking unsuspecting boaters and swimmers. Instead they took the same approach as Jaws and only gave us a dabbling of piranha attacks in the first half of the movie. Aja must have figured this would be a nice build up to the feeding frenzy that takes place for the last 25 minutes of the film. He could not be more wrong.

I think there may have been two scenes of piranha attacks in the first hour of this movie. So if there weren't piranha attacks, what was in the first hour of the movie? The answer is character and storyline introductions that lead to nowhere. We meet Sherriff Julie (Elizabeth Shue) whose job it is to keep the area safe during Spring Break. She finds the half-eaten body of Matt and wants to shut down the beach but is reminded this is the busiest time of the tourist season. Sound familiar? But instead of developing this as a fully fleshed out storyline, this is the last we hear of it.

We also meet hall of fame sleaze peddler Derrick Jones (Jerry O'Connell) whose 'Wild Wild Girls website is not even thinly veiled as Joe Francis' Girls Gone Wild site. O'Connell does a great job of playing this sleaze-bag whose only function in the movie is to be a reason to have hot topless women on the screen. If you want to do that, fine. But why spend all the time setting up the relationship between Jones and Julie's son Jake (Steven McQueen (yes, grandson)). Jones appears like he's going to be a mentor figure for the shy Jake but again, this storyline goes nowhere.

Even worse is there is no third act. The way they neutralize the threat was accidental more than planned. And it wasn't necessary in the escape scene in which it took place. It's like they had no way of ending it and threw something in that was really nonsensical.

The only reason why I am deconstructing character motivations and storylines in a 3D Piranha movie was because the filmmakers made the mistake of introducing them for the first half of this film. The big scene late in this movie is fun and is the reason why someone would pay money to see it. So my point is why hold it back to the end? It should have been like that all the way through. Because if you try to pass this off as a regular film with characters and storylines, you have to make it make sense.

And when these don't make sense, it makes me so mad I want to curse a blue streak. But I don't. Why?

PIRANHAS DON"T CARE FOR THE SALTY TALK.

People you have to learn the rules. It will save your life one day.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

2010-08-25T01:29:00.005-03:00

Here are three ways the world has gotten worse and not better in the past 15 years:

We live in a world where "The Situation" has more adulation and recognition than David Mamet. To fully explore the degree to which this is a crime against humanity would require more time and words than I could possibly muster right now.
It is now considered bad form to ask people out on dates either in person or on the phone. Today's kids believe it is to be done over text or email so as not to put the other person on the spot. Maybe one day we will get to the point where we can completely remove all genuine human interaction from our daily lives.
Filmmaker's today seem to believe that style is a legitimate substitute for story. It used to be that to be a wildly successful film, you had to craft a meaningful story to engage an audience to get them to keep coming back. Then Pulp Fiction (1994) happened and with it came a generation of directors who seemed more concerned with creating a slick, stylistic film than telling a great story.

And it is this last point that has caused the most consternation over recent years. It seems like time after time after time, I would come out of a theatre after seeing one of these slick, stylistic exercises in cinematic masturbation and think "How great could that have been if they combined that style with story? What would you get if one day someone had the crazy idea to tell a well crafted story with a fresh stylistic approach?"

The answer is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

This is a movie that is clearly targeted to a specific generation. The entire motif of the film is an homage to the Nintendo and X-Box fighting games that were ubiquitous in the 1990's and 2000's. The opening shot of the Universal Logo is done as if it done on the Nintendo gaming system circa 1990. Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) got permission to use the music from the game The Legend of Zelda (1986) because he believed it to be "The nursery rhyme of this generation."

So this film comes flying out of the gate with so many stylistic devices that speak to the MTV and video game generation that I'm bracing myself for another style-over-substance piece of dreck. I am almost white-knuckling the arm rests waiting for the combination of despair and anger to begin to wash over me. And even though I am being bombarded with cuts so quick it is difficult to keep track of what is real and what is fantasy, a strange realization starts to take hold of me. It occurs to me, I am not hating this movie. And here's why.

Just underneath the very stylized surface of this film is a story about a lost and adrift youth named Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) who plays in a garage band and spends time with his Asian pseudo girlfriend named Knives (Ellen Wong). Scott keeps having these dreams where he sees this pink haired beauty named Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who all but ignores him completely even in his own dreams. Then one night at a party, he sees this same girl and approaches her and awkwardly and clumsily asks her out. He is of course blown off completely but it doesn't dissuade him from making it his mission to win her over.

Now right here, despite all the video game gimmicks, they have cleverly set up a classic boy meets girl story. Due in large part to the boyish charm of Michael Cera, we like Scott and want to see him develop something with Ramona.

So we have the classic set up. Now to fully realize a second act, we're going to need a series of obstacles and challenges that our protagonist must overcome to succeed in his mission. And this is where this film really pays off in merging the style with substance. Because instead the obstacles being the nauseating and tiresome teen angst that makes you want to poke out both your eyes with sharpened number 2 pencils (Twilight series, call your office) this film establishes Ramona's exes as the obstacles Scott must overcome.

One by one, Scott faces one of her seven exes and must fight them in a Mortal Combat style. It is during these fight scenes where we get the full effect of the video game style. But it works brilliantly because only through this style would we accept it as being believable. And it makes the fighting fun without seeming gory and violent. In each battle Scott must find a new and ingenious way to overcome these stronger and more powerful enemies.

Across the board the cast did a great job at making these characters fantastical yet believable at the same time. Cera and Winstead are very compelling in their respective roles but it was relative newcomer Ellen Wong who really impressed me with her portrayal of Knives. With this character she takes her from shy Asian school girl to badass martial arts fighter. At the same time she needs to uphold the critical third part of the romantic triangle that evolves between Scott, Ramona, and Knives. This romantic triangle is so well executed that even at the very end, I was not sure either who Scott would end up with or who he should end up with.

Perhaps the greatest achievement Edgar Wright boasts in this film is turning the final showdown between the hero and antagonist into a genuinely suspenseful and anticipated event rather than the usual eye-rolling bore. When Scott faces off against Gideon, we want to see him kick some ass. This segment provides enough genuine surprises to keep it fresh and interesting.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World succeeds by complimenting style with story. It is fun and fresh and certainly worth checking out in the theatre. It is probably the best date movie out in the theatres right now.

Should you want to bring a date, whatever you do – do not ask them in person. That is so 1998!

Rejuvenated and Rededicated

2010-08-23T16:34:00.001-03:00

To the readers of this blog I have one thing to say – I am back and better than ever. One of those is actually true. I don't know if anyone missed reading this review blog while I was gone but I assure you I missed writing it. And so I return with a set schedule for upcoming blogs. From here on in you will find regular postings on Wednesday mornings and Friday afternoons.

The Friday afternoon review will be the biggest film of the weekend. The one you are most likely considering seeing that weekend. The Wednesday review will be whatever I felt like seeing the previous day.

If you have suggestions for movies you'd like reviewed, feel free to let me know either on Facebook, Twitter, or in the comments section of the latest review.

Tune in first thing Wednesday morning for the next review – Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

The Switch

2010-08-22T02:14:00.007-03:00

It has been three months and seven days since my last written review. That is 99 days in total. I apologize to my massive fan base (don't snicker, they could be out there) for my lengthy absence but I have been busy working on my own movie and TV stuff. So what cinematic achievement brought me out from my self-imposed exile? What could be so remarkable that I had to share my views with the world? Only one of the rarest phenomenons found on this earth.

First, let me give you some context. Here are some things that are incredibly rare in ascending order of rarity:

Ice Circles – This is a real thing, check it out here http://videosift.com/video/Ice-Circle-Extremely-rare-cold-weather-phenomenon
A Blue Sun – Now before you think I'm making this up take a look for yourself http://hubpages.com/hub/Blue-Sun---A-rare-phenomenon-captured-at-the-Pyramids-in-Egypt
The Udumbara Flower – according to Buddhist scripture blossoms every 3000 years before the coming of the next Buddha or Tathagata. I don't have a link for this but trust me, it is pretty rare.

But only one thing on this planet is more scarce than a profit-predicting flower found once every 3000 years and that is…the pretty good Jennifer Aniston romantic comedy. Faithful readers of this blog (seriously, again with the snickering?) will recall that back in March I predicted that the Jennifer Aniston vehicle The Bounty Hunter would kill the Romantic Comedy genre for good. Let's not forget that her other Rom Coms include: Love Happens, Rumour Has It, Along Came Polly, and Picture Perfect just to name a few.

So who exactly is picking these scripts for her? The only people more out of touch than her career advisers are LeBron James' PR team. I wouldn't have been surprised to see her on a one hour special on The E Network announcing "I'm taking my talents to The Switch". But in the face of history and the natural order of the universe, The Switch is a fun, enjoyable, and dare I say, touching film. So the burning question is WHY? The answer may surprise you.

The Switch is a comedy from the directing team of Josh Gordon and Will Speck (Blades of Glory) based on the short story by Jeffery Eugenides. Eugenides is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer so even without having read the short story, I'm going to go ahead and assume they had some strong story material from which to begin. The premise of the switch is that 40 year-old Kassie (Aniston) decides that she is going to have a baby despite not having a man in her life. The closest thing to a man in her life is her best friend Wally Mars (played brilliantly by Jason Bateman) who we know right away is in love with her. Kassie finds Roland (Patrick Wilson) a handsome Ken doll type to be the sperm donor. Of course things go comically awry when Wally accidently destroys Roland's specimen and, in a drunken haze, replaces it with his own. Flash ahead seven years and Kassie calls Wally out of the blue to tell him she and her son Sebastian (Thomas Robinson) are moving back to the city. When Wally meets Sebastian for the first time, he can't help but notice the similarities and, in time, realizes what happened. But how can he tell Kassie without losing her from his life?

Now if we stop right here, we can see that we have a fairly contrived comedic premise that appears to promise broad, over-the top gags and almost no genuine character development. And yet that's not at all what we get so again, the question is why? Much of the answer can be found within the two leads themselves.

Where this film succeeds where The Bounty Hunter failed is in the casting of Jennifer Aniston's love interest. In the Bounty Hunter, Gerard Butler was way over the top trying to wring big laughs out of every situation. He doesn't get many comedies and it seems like he was trying to get all of his comedic abilities out in one fell swoop. But here Jason Bateman does what he does best – play a character with understated charm that makes us feel like we are watching a real person rather than a stock sit-com character. As Wally, he is a neurotic, self absorbed man-child who doesn't have the courage to tell Kassie how he really feels for her. He doesn't play him for laughs but instead, holds back, giving the character real vulnerability.

And because Bateman is brilliantly understated, this allows Aniston to be portrayed in the best possible light. When she doesn't have to match Gerard Butler's frantic comic energy she can be the best version of herself as an actress. Don't mistake the opening of this review as Jennifer Aniston bashing. I think she is a tremendous talent. One need only see her in Friends With Money or The Good Girl to see just how great she can be. And here we get a glimpse of this again. (Minor Spoiler Alert) In the scene when Wally finally tells her the truth about being Sebastian's real father the camera stays on her reaction. We wait for her to get angry or sad or any other one note emotion. Instead her face reflects a combination of anger and sadness and a little bit of relief at the same time. It is this kind of depth that makes us keep coming back to her movies.

But perhaps the real secret to the success of The Switch is that the relationship that captures our attention is not that of Wally and Kassie but rather that of Wally and Sebastian. Robinson is amazing at matching Bateman's gloomy neurotic energy. As the movie progresses we see not only them becoming closer but more importantly, how they influence change in each other for the better. This relationship saves the film from having to go through the clichéd pitfalls of the boy-girl plotlines.

Alas, The Switch does have its missteps. After going almost the whole movie avoiding unmotivated and nonsensical character choices, we have the first encounter between Kassie and Wally after the truth has come out. I thought the last 10 minutes of the film was the ending to another, less sharp film. It left me a little uneasy but was not enough to ruin the movie for me. I just wish they would have worked a little harder at showing us why Kassie does what she does.

Don't expect this film to be single out on Oscar night but if you want to see a fresh, fun Jennifer Aniston romantic comedy, I would suggest you check it out. After all, how often do these come around?

By my count, once in a blue sun.

The Backup Plan

2010-05-15T17:23:00.002-03:00

The best wing joint in the universe is Duff's Famous Wings on Bayview in Toronto. I go there every time I am in the city. What I love about Duff's is they have a wing so hot, when someone orders it they ring a bell and set off the flashing red light. This is the dreaded Armageddon wing and it is one level hotter than "Death". That's right - there is a wing level hotter than death. One night while watching my buddies Lee and Rob enjoy Armageddon wings, I decided I would try one. Up to that point, the hottest I would go is "Super Hot" and I couldn't imagine going any hotter. But I was of the mindset that even thought it might be an unpleasant experience, I wanted to try one to see just how bad it could be. The answer – worse than I ever imagined. Long story short, that wing made me its bitch. But it also taught me two very important things: (1) Lee and Rob are clearly better men than I and (2) Never do anything you know will be unpleasant just to see how unpleasant it could possibly be.

A lesson I should have heeded when I was considering going to see "The Backup Plan".

Now I knew this was going to be a bad movie. Anyone unfortunate enough to be exposed to the trailer could tell this movie was going to suck big time (please forgive the professional film review jargon) but I wanted to see just how bad it could possibly be. Cue the bell and flashing red lights.

From the very first image, it was clear there was something off about this movie. We see a close-up of Zoe's (Jennifer Lopez) feet and hear her inner monologue as she frets over not getting a pedicure before the procedure. Turns out she is being artificially inseminated and at this moment she is obsessing over the horror of the doctor seeing her toenails in that condition. And that was all the comedy included in that scene. It was then that I knew that the people behind this movie don't know how to bring the funny. And nothing that unfolded over the next 104 minutes did anything to dissuade me of this notion.

But being simply un-funny is not the biggest sin this movie commits. This movie goes on to commit the cardinal sin of betraying and undermining the movie's entire premise. The premise of The Backup Plan is that immediately after deciding to get artificially inseminated, she meets the man of her dreams which in this case is Stan (Alex O'Laughlin). So now Zoe has to keep this great guy she's met (of course she hates him at first) even though she's now going to have a baby. Now for this premise to work, one of two things has to happen. Either (A) This guy has to be the all-time commit-a-phobe who tells her that even the thought of having kids would send him running to the hills or (B) She has to believe that to be the case on her own. Either way, she has to keep the pregnancy from him for as long as possible because as soon as he finds out, he is gone. There could be a lot of funny bits in seeing how long a pregnant woman can hide this fact from her new boyfriend. What can't happen is for him to find out about it early and be such a great guy that he's going to stick around anyway. As you can probably guess, they went with the latter scenario and at this point I start looking around the theatre.

Why?

In 2003 I decided to go see Gili (another J.Lo. bomb) in the theatre because then, like now, I wanted to see how bad it could be. When I was in the theatre I counter 21 people there. By the 40 minute mark seven had walked out. A full third of the audience had walked out and I was certain people would walk out of The Backup Plan. Why wouldn't they? It's not funny and now that Stan knows Zoe is pregnant, it has no choice but to play out like a poor man's She's Having a Baby (1988). The only option at this point is to have them fight and get back together a few times before the big fight after which we believe they are done for good. Then of course she will go into labour, word will get to him that she is in labour and he will rush to her side and they will live happily ever after.

And I possibly could have lived with this if the execution was within a ten dollar cab ride of being believable. But what causes the big fight? He mentions to someone that the babies aren't his. She of course believes this means he will not stick around and this is what passes for an ACT II turning point. What convinces her that he really will stick around? She found out he had ordered a special stroller for the impending twins. That tells her that his love is real. These characters are morons and deserve lifetime of each other's company.

So this movie is not funny, betrayed its premise, and has Jennifer Lopez who now must surpass Carrot Top atop the" box office poison" pyramid. Clearly it can't get any worse. If only that were the case.

On top of everything else, the movie trots out every last rom com cliché and expects us to react like we've never seen it before. So I hereby declare a moratorium on the following hack-writer devices:

The talking in the mirror fake-out – We see a close-up of Zoe as she appears to be telling Stan that she is pregnant. As soon as we see it, the piece screams out "She's talking in a mirror". It goes on for what seems like an eternity before they pull back to reveal…wait for it…she was just practicing in a mirror. The next screenwriter who tries to pass this off as fresh is getting the Armageddon wing enema.
The food/water fight substituting for first date chemistry – Zoe and Stan are having what we are to believe as a romantic date because they are having dinner outdoors. When Stan accidently spills red wine on her, he tries to help her clean up and this leads to an eventual water fight with a hose which we are supposed to think is cute and endearing. Here's the new rule – If you can't demonstrate chemistry between the lovers during the dinner portion, you don't get to pass off a food fight or water fight as evidence they should be together.
The pregnant woman watches the wacky Lamaze colleague give birth first and gets freaked out – this one pretty much speaks for itself and needs to be retired.

I wondered why they would make this movie so soon after Knocked Up covered the material so much better. Then I thought maybe they thought they were doing the opposite premise of Knocked up. Knocked up was mismatched couple finds out she is pregnant and how will they deal with the fact that it is his baby. The backup Plan is she meets the perfect guy after intentionally getting pregnant on her own. How will they cope with the fact it is not his baby.

The difference is that Knocked Up was smart, fresh, funny, and poignant. What is the opposite of that?

The Backup Plan.

Note to my Russian readers

2010-04-22T15:38:00.002-03:00

Добро пожаловать в русский любителей кино. Надеюсь, вам понравится мои рецензии фильма

Kick-Ass

2010-04-21T18:53:00.007-03:00

Two years ago Andre sent me an email asking if I wanted to go see Iron Man. I always enjoy the movie-going experience with Andre (My hetero life-mate as his wife Stacey describes it) but on this day I was hesitant. You see, I had given up on super-hero movies. I was tired of seeing the same old recycled dreck again and again. Daredevil was a poor man's watered down Batman. The Superman reboot failed to leap tall buildings in a single bound and the two Hulk movies redefined the term “unwatchable.” So on this day I explained to Andre that I would go see Iron Man as long as it met the following criteria: (1) As a child, the hero doesn't watch his parents die at the hands of his future arch nemesis (2) He doesn't have to hide his secret identity from his unrequited love who is really in love with the hero and (3) There won't be nipples on the superhero costume (That's right, I'm talking to you Batman & Robin). Andre assured me none of those applied and to his credit Iron Man was everything he said it would be and more. I thought it was the best movie in the genre since the first two Spider-Man movies and not even The Dark Knight surpassed it in my estimation.

But then came Kick-Ass.

I know all you Dark Knight fans are already writing your angry responses (probably led by Moore, Andrew) but this was the best superhero movie I have seen in the past six years, easily. How can I describe it? I'm trying to think of a two word phrase that conveys how this movie dominated in every conceivable way. Hmmmmmm. Oh well, it will come to me.

Kick-Ass tells the story of Dave Lizewski (Aarron Johnson), an anonymous high school student and comic book fan who wonders why nobody ever tried to be a super-hero in real life. His curiosity soon turns to obsession and before long he is out trying to thwart bad guys. The ensuing beating and aftermath he suffers leaves him with damaged nerve endings meaning he is mostly immune to pain. This is the first sign of brilliance in this movie. They are able to give the hero some kind of “super-power” that is both believable and successful in moving the story forward. Now buoyed by his condition, Dave goes out to avenge Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca), the girl he is crushing on.

Without revealing too much, it is safe to say that Kick-Ass comes in contact with two actual superheroes who are doing it for real – Big Daddy and Hit-Girl. This is where the movie really starts to take off. Nicholas Cage is brilliant as Big Daddy. He is able to portray both the doting father in his real-life and a believable Batman clone as his super hero alter ego. In fact, he pulls off a very nice homage to the Adam West portrayal of Batman with the way he delivers his lines.

As good as Cage is in this movie, the real star is newcomer Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl, an 11 year-old trained assassin masked hero. The first time we see her, she is in a training session with her dad. This scene is memorable for the way it is able to convince us of their competence as highly trained killers while still making us believe she is a very real 11 year-old girl who loves spending time with her dad. And her first line as the masked Hit-Girl is cinematic gold, if not entirely age appropriate. Perhaps that is what is so great about that character. She is both a potty-mouthed deadly killer and a sweet little girl. This juxtaposition gives her an amazing screen presence that is so strong, when she is not on the screen, I eagerly awaited her return. My buddy Kelly predicted she will receive a nomination come next Oscar season and I wholeheartedly agree.

I thought Director Matthew Vaughn (Stardust, Layer Cake) did a very nice job in respecting the comic book origins while still making this feel like a feature film. He uses the convention of having the Cage character create a Big Daddy/Hit-Girl comic book. When one of the characters flips through this comic book, we are given the back-story of how these superheores came to be. Here Vaughn embraces the look and style of the comic book to serve his feature film storytelling. He displays a very deft touch which comes across nicely on the big screen.

This movie is categorized in the sub genre of super-hero/comedy. Most of the comparisons I have seen liken it to Ben Stiller's Mystery-Men. I don't believe these movies belong in the same category. I enjoyed Mystery-Men as a comedy but never took it seriously as a super-hero movie. The world of superheroes and villains were simply the backdrop for a fairly traditional comedy. This movie works because it takes the world of heroes and villains very seriously. The heavies would not feel out of place in any other super-hero movie. When Kick-Ass ventures into waters well over his head, the consequences are real and believable. That the movie plays for comedic effect and not big laughs from gags is what sets it apart from other failed action-comedies.

This is not to suggest that it is a perfect movie. There are times towards the end where the developments feel a little familiar. The character of Red Mist (Christopher-Mintz Plasse aka McLovin) is a nice twist as a guy torn between the family business and the super-hero world. Still they character arc for Red Mist wanders into territory that we've seen before. James Franco will certainly feel a sense of deja-vu upon seeing this film. But the truth is that for a genre which has been done to death in the past decade or so, there is much to this movie which feels fresh and fun.

As for my two-word summation, it will have to wait for another day. Wait, I got it! This movie....

TOTALLY ROCKS.

I can't believe I didn't see that before.

How To Train Your Dragon

2010-04-01T20:21:00.001-03:00

Just about a year ago I walked out of a darkened theatre after seeing the animated movie “Up” and I couldn't shake this one thought that was echoing throughout my brain – that was the best written movie I had seen in a years. Could that really be true? A “kids movie”? An animated movie? Several Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Writing Directly For The Screen, told me I was not alone in my observation.

Now, almost a year later I walked out of another darkened theatre this time filled with certainty rather than doubt. Anyone who wants to know how to tell a story for the screen should look at the best of the Pixar and Dreamworks catalogs because the latest Dreamworks offering,“How To Train Your Dragon” is a rich and beautifully told story that will entertain movie-goers of all ages.

How To Train Your Dragon, tells the story of Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), a young Viking boy who grows up in a village terrorized by Dragons who attack at night. He observes that the village is very old but all the buildings are new. They keep getting torched by the fire breathing dragons. So hiccup harbours the dreams of every other viking boy in the village – to grow up to be the greatest dragon killer ever known. Of course, the scrawny and clumsy Hiccup just isn't cut out to be a fierce dragon-killing warrior. This is an embarrassment to not only Hiccup himself but more so to Hiccup's father Stoick who really is the greatest Viking warrior in the Village.

Stoick leads a Viking expedition to search for the dragon's nest and Hiccup is enrolled in dragon-slaying training with some other kids his age. It is at this point when Hiccup stumbles upon the fiercest and rarest dragon of all, a black night fury. Turns out Hiccup wounded it one night with a cannon shot but nobody would believe him. Hiccup tries to kill the wounded dragon but discovers he cannot. When he sets it free instead, the dragon-killer wannabe and dragon (whom he names Toothless) begin a tenuous relationship that is very delicate.

Right here I'd like to point out what a brilliant job the writers have done in setting up the story to this point. Yes, this movie is based on a 2003 British Children's novel by Cressida Cowell but it is the changes the writers made to the original source material that really made this work. In the novel, the villagers train dragons and young Hiccup and his friends enroll in dragon-training classes rather than dragon-slaying classes. By portraying the dragons and villagers as historical enemies engaged in years of battles to the death, it “raises the stakes” for the detente that Hiccup and Toothless are about to enter into. Can dragons really be trusted? What happens if Stoick and the other villagers find out?

So as this story turns nicely from Act I to Act II we now have parallel training sessions going on. On the one hand, Hiccup is learning the “traditional teachings” of what dragon's are all about from village elder Gobber (voiced by Craig Ferguson). While at the same time he is learning what really makes dragon's tick from his secret experiences with Toothless. At one point he voices the inescapable yet logical conclusion “Everything we know about them is wrong.” Eventually the villagers view on dragons and Hiccups view of dragons are going to come into direct conflict. There is a nice turn where we discover why dragons sack the villagers and make off with farm animals.

What makes this story work is that is functions on more than one level. I could count on one hand the live action movies I've seen in the last 18 months for which I could say the same. Here the surface level “plot” involves Hiccup's dragon training and his secret excursions with Toothless. But beyond that is the character's inner journey which involves repairing a strained relationship between father and son. We get the sense training Toothless to fly on command is nothing compared to getting Stoick to actually listen to and connect with Hiccup. These scenes between father and son are as important and powerful as any aerial dragon fighting scene in the film.

Another aspect that makes this movie a success is the flying scenes involving Hiccup and Toothless. Somehow the animators are able to give you the sense that you are actually there flying with them. I almost want to see this movie again in IMAX 3D just for that experience. There is a beautiful scene between Hiccup Toothless and Astrid, the girl Hiccup crushes on (voiced by Ugly Betty's America Ferrara). Toothless seems to know how to impress a girl so gives them a combination of roller coaster thrill ride and romantic cruise in the sky. It gave a fresh take to the magic carpet scene from Aladdin. These scenes along with the action sequences are beautifully composed and executed.

This is by no means a perfect movie. It takes some shortcuts at the end with the father-son relationship. I think the underlying story elements in Up were stronger than they are with this movie. But on the whole, you would be hard pressed to find a better story and more fun at the local cineplex.

I really do wish live the powers-that-be behind live-action movies would pay as much attention to establishing and developing character as the animation studios do. I will still go to the theatre in the hopes of finding it. Of course when I am let down time after time, I won't fret too much. I'll just keep thinking of June 18, 2010. For that is the day that Toy Story 3 opens and I know that story will once again triumph on the big screen.

(It's also my father's 69th birthday but I'm fairly certain he wouldn't want that out there for public consumption so I will not bring it up.)

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-29T02:21:00.002-03:00

Memo to all writers directors and producers who plan on coming out with a time travel movie from this point forward. As of this moment, all time travel logistics must be cleared by me before it goes up on a screen for public consumption. This may seem like a drastic and arbitrary move but after seeing Hot Tub Time Machine this weekend, I've simply had it and I've decided something has to be done. From this point on I am the Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics.

Now you're probably wondering “What could this silly comedy have done so egregiously wrong that you are now declaring yourself The Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics?” I'm so glad you asked.

The characters get transported back to what we believe is 1986. The strongest indication is that they discover they are at their favorite ski resort for Winterfest '86 so I'm placing it in February 1986. Then we see them flipping through the channels and one of the shows that comes on is Alf which did not come on the air until September 1986. A very minor infraction and one which I was only too happy to overlook. Then a little later they decide to take advantage of their knowledge of past events and make a very daring bet on the Cleveland-Denver football game involving John Elway's legendary performance known as “The Drive”. This game did in fact exist except in took place in January 1987. A little sloppier but I was willing to overlook this as well. Then came the mother of all time travel inaccuracies.

One of the four time travelers is Jacob (Clark Duke) who is introduced earlier as the 20 year-old nephew of Adam (John Cusak). However later we learn that it is at Winterfest '86 where the 20 year old in 2010 is conceived. Anyone sober, conscious, and over the age of seven can see that they aren't even trying to make the time travel stuff make sense. I am willing to shift the brain functioning down a level or two for a movie like this but I can't be expected to carve open my skull with an exacto knife, remove my brain altogether and bury it in the back yard.

My frustration with the idiotic time travel logistics comes not because I didn't like this movie but rather because mostly I did. Strip away the epic fail that is the time missteps and you have a fun, funny movie that is enjoyable to watch. It is like the slightly dimmer and less successful first cousin of The Hangover. Not as sharp but certainly in the ballpark.

Hot Tub Time Machine tells the story of three old friends who now in their 40's have lost touch completely. Adam is going through a painful divorce from a vindictive wife. Nick (The Office's Craig Robinson) is a former musician who is wallowing in a dead-end job and domestic issues of his own percolating. Adam and Nick are reunited at the hospital when they get word that their third amigo Lou (Rob Courdry) is hospitalized after an apparent suicide attempt. Though the friends have not hung out in years, they decide to take a trip together to their old haunt, Codiac Valley Ski resort, in an attempt to cheer up Lou. Joining the group is Adam's aforementioned (ahem) 20 year-old nephew Jacob.

At the resort they get in the hot tub and find themselves back in the 1980's. And here is where the movie seems to stagger and stumble a little bit. It succeeds in having fun with sending up the decade and sharing a laugh with the audience in how silly a lot of it was. Where it struggles though is it doesn't seem to know what kind of genie-out-of-the-bottle movie it wants to be. Once they discover the time travel phenomenon they all make a pact to do things exactly as they did in 1986 as to not introduce the butterfly effect. This is the idea that any slight change they introduce could dramatically affect the future. This leads to funny scene with Nick and a groupie in a hot tub. But eventually they abandon this pact and it becomes every man for himself. While this frees them up for comic misadventures, it also takes away the jeopardy for the characters. What are they now driven to do and what happens if they fail? We don't really know.

Two of the best time travel movies ever were Time After Time (1979) and Back To The Future (1985). Where these movies succeeded is they used the time travel aspect not just as a premise for the movie but as a central driving force of the story. H.G. Wells chases Jack The Ripper back to modern day San Francisco to stop this horrible monster who has been unleashed on an unsuspecting public. Marty McFly must get his parents to fall in love or he will cease to exist. In both cases, the protagonists have very clear missions where failure is simply not an option. I think this movie could have benefited by more careful consideration of what to do with those characters once they were placed in 1986.

And yet this film still has enough charm and laughs to skate by. There is a very funny running gag where Lou insists on seeing how the one-armed bellhop (Back To The Future's Crispin Glover) eventually loses his arm. The relationships between the male characters feel authentic and believable. The bottom line is we enjoy spending time with these guys and this is why the movie works despite its flaws.

And because the movie works I have to ask the question again – how hard would it be to make sure the time travel stuff made sense? Pick a time they go back to (say February 1986) and make sure all pop culture references pre-date that time period. So you show a clip of Miami Vice or Who's The Boss instead of Alf. The bet is on the Bears-Patriots Super Bowl instead of The Drive. Really this isn't rocket science here. But I know, I know. Who went and made me The Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics?

Oh yeah, that's right, I did!

The Bounty Hunter

2010-03-19T22:18:00.003-03:00

The year is 2148 and students in a film history class are studying a long-dead movie genre that even their parents and grandparents were too young to see in the cinematic story spheres (These replaced movie theatres in 2036). They are told that a century and a half ago people used to pay good money to see this type of cinematic storytelling. But in the early parts of the 21st century, filmmakers eventually murdered this genre, mangling the stories so badly that eventually people stopped going to see them altogether.

“What was this genre called?” one inquisitive student asks aloud.

“They called it the Romantic Comedy,” the instructor offers. “There was a time when these were some of the most finely crafted stories people could see on the screen. Woody Allen paved the way for the genre with Annie Hall. Later more traditional offerings would take the form of When Harry Met Sally, Four Weddings & A Funeral, and Notting Hill. But today we’re going to look at one example of the kind of dreck that killed the genre for good. This type of movie was neither romantic nor funny and seemed basically pointless. Today we’ll be looking at The Bounty Hunter from the year 2010.”

I’ll be honest. I’m not certain if this dystopian future is my biggest fear or greatest wish. But if film historians ever do look back at what killed the romantic comedy, I’m sure they would have a field day with the Bounty Hunter. A movie that seems to be put together by people who have no idea what makes these types of movies great. Director Andy Tennant’s previous credits include (Fool’s Gold, Hitch, Sweet Home Alabama, and Fools Rush In) Perhaps he is on a one man mission to kill the genre by pumping out crappy movies. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.

Unless you’ve been in a post-Olympics coma for the last three weeks, you know that the movie is about a bounty hunter named Milo (Gerard Butler) who has to track down his bail-jumping ex-wife Nicole (Jennifer Aniston) and bring her to jail. Nicole is a reporter who has stumbled upon a suicide that doesn’t add up and she is being pursued by the bad guys who want to silence her for good. This is a decent comedic premise on which you could hang some funny set pieces and solid character development. This movie however boasts none of that.

I don’t think there is one genuine laugh in this entire film. You might laugh at Nicole punching Milo in his junk only to have him chase her down and tackle her in a field. But even if you do, they burn through this nugget in the first 17 seconds of the movie. Almost like a skilled 45’s partner who knows to throw out his only trump early when his partner has taken the bid. You’re basically saying “this is all I got, you’re on your own from here on out.” There are the ubiquitous scenes of Nicole getting away and then getting caught again but there aren’t any real laughs in there.

But I could forgive this movie if it were merely unfunny. It’s biggest sin however is making us sit through a long and torturous romantic subplot which features two people who you don’t care if they get together or not. Seriously, how hard is it to get the audience to root for the ex-lovers to get back together? I’m not sure if they were able to clear this bar. I think they were better off divorced. Not because I think they can’t possibly get along, but rather because I can’t see one reason why they should be together.

Our futuristic film history professor will correctly inform his class that when these genres work, it boasts two people who are destined to be together and are thrown into a wild adventure from which they emerge as better people and overcome those flaws that were keeping them apart. By acquiring the tools to overcome their dire situation, they also acquire the tools to overcome the obstacles in their personal life. In this movie, I don’t know exactly why they got married in the first place and what is now keeping them apart. Apparently he is stubborn and she works a lot. Not really a huge mountain to overcome.

And yet this movie all but abandon’s the jeopardy of being pursued by the bad guys for a huge chunk in the middle as we stay with Milo and Nicole as they “rediscover themselves” as a couple. Just when it seems they are going to spend a romantic night together, there is a misunderstanding over an overheard phone call and the tensions are ratcheted back up. Once again our film studies class will learn that the misunderstanding over an overheard conversation is a device that serves as a sure giveaway you are watching a bad movie.

The climatic scene involving a showdown with the bad guys is underwhelming and frought with tired clichés. Again, we don’t really care what happens at the end. Then there is the question of whether or not Milo will turn Nicole in to the police. Here the filmmakers believe they are being fresh and cute with how they resolve this. I would agree with this is “cute” if "cute" can serve as a synonym for “nauseating”.

Kevin Smith recently tweeted that he really didn’t understand the movie industry until his recent experience with Cop Out. He was basically saying that studios don’t really care about the artistic merits of any particular film as long as they meet a certain box office revenue target for its given budget. Make the target, boast a successful film. This is the only rationale I can see for allowing this movie to be filmed and released. Maybe the star power of Butler and Aniston can turn this into a profitable movie. Because God knows they couldn’t make it a good one.

But don’t take my word for it. Wait for the verdict of a film studies class 138 years from now.

Green Zone

2010-03-17T00:48:00.005-03:00

I had a friend in University named Kate. Amongst Kate’s many endearing quirks was the way she told a story. Nobody told a story quite like Kate. All her stories were filled with urgency and exuberance as if this were the most important story anyone has ever told. She would often burst into a room and say something like, “Oh my God, you would not believe what I just saw. I was walking down the street and there was a guy and he had a big dog.” And just when you were bracing yourself for this incredible reveal like the dog attacked three men or jumped on top of a moving bus or maybe did a soft shoe routine to Puttin’ On The Ritz, it occurs to you that this is the end of the story. There was a guy and he had a big dog – that’s it.

So years went by and just when I became convinced I would never hear a Kate story ever again, I saw Green Zone.

The latest offering by the duo that brought you the last two Bourne offerings (Director Paul Greengrass and leading man Matt Damon) genuinely believes that it has an important story to tell. It has all the markings of an important war movie which also boasts relevant social commentary. Except, in the end, it really doesn’t offer either.

Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller who leads one of the first teams on the ground charged with the responsibility of finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in the early weeks of the 2003 Iraq War. Miller quickly becomes frustrated when all of his attempts to score the big find play out like Geraldo at Al Capone’s vault. In a word – bupkiss. Miller is vocal about his belief that they are acting on shoddy intelligence. His superior reminds him that his job is to execute order, not question them and he is quickly shut down.

One day while executing routine orders, an Iraqi civilian approaches Miller with information that Saddam’s inner circle (but not Saddam himself) is gathering in a house nearby. Miller rounds up his team to see if they can capture these men and get some genuine intelligence on the whereabouts of the WMD’s. They are able to capture some of the men and get a good lead on Saddam’s top general who would be able to give them answers. Just when Miller is about to get the information, a special forces team descends upon the scene and takes the captured Iraqis away from Miller. Miller is pissed and wants to know why they would do this.

He soon learns from a wise old CIA Middle East expert (Brendon Gleeson) that there are some higher-ups who don’t want the mystery of the missing WMD’s solved. Damon must choose between going along with his assignment or breaking off and finding answers to his questions. This is about the point where the movie has my keenest interest. I am intrigued at the prospect of a war film where the forces of antagonism come not from the foreigners but from within a faction of the same side as our protagonist. I am sure that Miller will lead us through a web of political intrigue as we learn new and more shocking revelations. But alas, it goes no deeper.

I will say SPOILER ALERT here although really there is not much to spoil. Miller has his suspicions confirmed that …wait for it…the U.S. government lied about the presence of WMD’s in Iraq. Gasp! At this reveal I wanted to superimpose a clip of Claude Rains from Casablanca so he could announce that he was shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on here! We are made to feel like this revelation should be shocking and mind-blowing. The problem is once Miller has this piece of information, the rest of the movie plays out like another Bourne movie.

Miller has to get to the Iraqi general before the special forces team so he can bring him in and tell the world the truth – that there were never any WMD’s after 1991 and he told the Americans this in the weeks leading up to the war. Miller knows the special forces team wants to kill the general so he can never reveal this truth. So the third act plays out like another generic action movie where it’s a race to see who can get to him first. It’s not terrible but it’s nothing close to the level of political intrigue.

And that is my biggest problem with Green Zone. It wants to come off like it has something important to say but it never does. There are glimpses where it appears like it is trying to. Amy Ryan plays a Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the big story about the WMD program. Miller has a scene with her where he chastises her for accepting the government’s story on the existence of WMD’s without verifying the facts. I think this is fertile grounds in which to explore the notion of journalistic responsibility and the culpability of the media in the days leading up to war. Perhaps if the media were not so intimidated and actually asked the tough questions, it would have been difficult for the U.S. government to sell the phony WMD’s story. But sadly this movie doesn’t explore this notion any further than the aforementioned scene of Miller wrist-slapping.

In the end this movie comes off as preachy about the sanctity of honesty in making the case to go to war. And while it wants to be lauded for taking a tough stand, it strikes me as a more than a bit nauseating. It’s like sitting through a two hour movie whose point is that hot lunches for orphans are a good thing. My question is – where was this movie in 2004 or 2005 when Bush was still popular and people weren’t a hundred percent convinced that the WMD story was a hoax? Coming out with this tough political statement now, in this current political climate, just strikes me as weak.

So if it doesn’t work as a war movie, or political thriller, or action movie or social commentary then what exactly is Green Zone?

Just a story about a guy standing there with a big dog.

Alice in Wonderland

2010-03-14T21:38:00.002-03:00

Perhaps the most enduring image from my experience seeing Tim Burton’s sequel to Alice In Wonderland came not from the movie itself but from what I witnessed as I filed out of the theatre. As I walked by the people lining up for the later show I saw the kind of thing I expected only from Star Wars, Star Trek or Superhero movies – costumed geek-boys (and girls). There was a mad hatter, a girl in a blonde wig and another wearing white rabbit ears. And I remember thinking ‘Does Alice In Wonderland really have that much pop culture street cred?” But as I thought back on the film, it occurred to me that it had to and it probably hurt the film in the long run.

This is not a reboot of a franchise but rather an old fashioned sequel where we see Alice 13 years after she first went down the rabbit hole. Now as a 20 year-old Alice is surprised to find herself at her own engagement party. A stuffy twit named Hamish asks for her hand although it is clear the two have nothing in common. All these years later, she is still full of wonder and enjoys pondering the impossible while he seems to want to chastise her for wasting time thinking about impractical things. Her hesitancy in answering is proposal is further fueled by repeated sightings of a white rabbit dressed in a top coat. There is something very familiar about this rabbit even though she is convinced her previous experience was nothing more than a dream. She chases the rabbit, falls down the rabbit hole and so begins Alice’s new adventure in Wonderland.

Cue Tim Burton.

What works best in Alice in Wonderland is how Burton is able to combine a world already established in classic literature with his own stylistic vision. This film is visually stunning, along with every other film in Burton’s catalog. He portrays Wonderland (the actual name for the place is “Underland”) as a world of hyper realism. Everything and everyone in it is exaggerated. The scary animals are terrifying, the wicked Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is grotesquely evil, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is bizarre in both appearance and behaviour, and the good White Queen (Anne Hatheway) has an almost angelic (with just a hint of goth) in the vibe she gives off. Burton does an excellent job in realizing these characters and making them seem fresh and compelling.

Equally strong as Burton’s direction was the performances of the actors portraying the main characters. Mia Wasikowska plays the 20 year old Alice with the delicate combination of wide-eyed wonder and inner strength. I was most captivated by her when she was in her ordinary world standing out as a fresh voice in a world on conformity. Wasikowska plays her not as a some silly flighty girl but as someone who genuinely has something to say and doesn’t feel anyone around is listening. In wonderland she is able to step up when needed to and make that seem believable.

Johnny Depp is brilliant as the Mad Hatter. It seems likely that Depp and Burton are soul mates from another time and universe. Depp is able to play someone who needs to be over-the-top insane with a humanity that makes the audience genuinely sympathetic to him. In the hands of a lesser actor, the character would be a caricature of the Hatter and certainly less appealing.

Where this movie breaks down however is in the story itself. SPOILER ALERT Shortly after she arrives in Wonderland, Alice learns that her return is no accident that she is brought back at this time. A special day is approaching and it has been foretold that Alice will slay the jabberwocky and this end the Red Queen’s evil reign over Wonderland. They even role out a scroll which contains detailed drawings of Alice battling the dragon-like creature. While this works great to motivate why the residents of Wonderland need to find Alice and bring her back, it tips its hand too much regarding the 3rd act.

The main thrust of the story involves Alice getting to the Red Queen’s castle so she can get a special sword that she will use to slay the jabberwocky. Once she has it and escapes to the White queen’s castles they try to make a big issue of whether or not Alice will step up and slay the beast. But by showing the scroll with the never wrong prophesies, they already ruined that dramatic moment. We know she is going to step and do it so all attempts at Hamlet-esque dithering fall short of the mark.

Beyond that there is a more fundamental flaw in the design of this story. In these type of adventure stories, the “brave new world” adventure needs to inform the protagonist on issues he or she faces back in the real world. In the Wizard of Oz for example, Dorothy is unhappy where she is and would rather be anywhere else. After being whisked away to Oz and going through the adventure, what great lesson does she take away from it? There’s no place like home.

In this story, there doesn’t seem to be any connection between the adventure she undertakes and the impact it has on her real life. She doesn’t have to physically best a dragon to know she shouldn’t marry Hamish and instead go on and live a fulfilling life on her own terms. The writer makes this painfully obvious from the opening scenes of the movie. And her life’s decision at the end can’t be traced back to any life lesson she picked up in her second adventure in Wonderland. The jabberwocky scene seems placed there because with the special effects capability Burton has at his disposal, they can’\t resist a drawn out battle. They want to turn Alice into a Laura Croft type at the end of this film. It doesn’t seem to fit in any way.

To the degree this movie works, it is only because of the classic material it uses at a starting point. But the real test is – would this story have been successful if it was released as an original piece today> Sadly, I believe the answer is no. Had it been an original piece more work would have to have gone into making the story work on several levels. But this work wasn’t done likely because they knew they didn’t have to. They could release a fairly flashy yet flat movie and what would be the result? Fanboys and Fangirls lined up and dressed as their favorite characters.

The blessing and the curse of doing a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.

She's Out of My League

2010-03-12T18:53:00.001-04:00

There is a scene in She’s Out of My League where the average guy Kirk (Jay Baruchel) and the blonde knock-out Molly (Alice Eve) are in her parents place enjoying some quality alone time early in their relationship. Their make-out session is passionate and intense and while he suggests they slow it down a bit, she presses on. (so to speak) Then in the scene’s “climactic” (last one, I promise) moment, he is hit with the sudden and unmistakable realization that he may have been enjoying it a bit too much for his own good. Her parents arrive and the scene delivers on some decent cringe-worthy humour. But more than that, this sequence serves as a metaphor for how this movie made me feel when I left the theatre.

Please, let me explain.

I had high hopes for this movie. I went into it with the expectations of achieving full narrative satisfaction by the end of it. And while it had its moments and was not at all an unpleasant experience, it still left me feeling somewhat unsatisfied. There is a really good movie in there somewhere but this time out, it just didn’t bring its “A” game.

Now that I’ve sufficiently and uncomfortably driven that metaphor into the ground, let’s move on.

I like Baruchel in just about everything he’s done up to this point and he doesn’t disappoint here. As Kirk, he brings and intelligence and warmth to a character which could easily come off as pathetic. Kirk is an airport security guy who lacks a great deal of self-confidence. Our first image of Kirk is him pleading to his “girlfriend” that while they’ve both benefited by their two years of “off time” from their relationship, he believes it’s time for some “on time”. This despite the fact that his girlfriend has a new boyfriend, both of whom have been all but adopted by Kirk’s parents.

Alice Eve is equally adept in her performance as Molly, the stunningly beautiful young woman who still comes off sweet and likable. It’s not that Molly doesn’t know she’s beautiful. She just seems completely at ease about it. When she’s invited to join Kirk’s family for a swim she tells them she doesn’t have a bathing suit. When they encourage her to swim in her underwear, she tells them with great glee that she is not wearing any. This makes her seem even sexier to the guys in the scene and us as the audience. The filmmakers seem to understand the universal truth that there is nothing quite as sexy as someone who is comfortable in their own skin. Of course they hedge their bets by showing off Molly’s body in a manner I haven’t seen since Jessica Rabbit.

Perhaps even stronger than the leads were the supporting cast, particularly Kirk’s family. I’ve mentioned before that thriller suspense movies are only as strong as the heavy. An addendum to this is that romantic comedies are only as strong as the supporting players (i.e.. Ilsa Fisher in Wedding Crashers). Here, Lindsey Sloane as his ex, Marnie, and Kyle Bornheimer as Kirk's obnoxious brother Dylan serve beautifully as foils to Kirks attempts to have a normal relationship with Molly. Also standing in the way is Kirk’s best friend Stainer (T.J. Miller) who puts it in Kirk’s head that she is too hot for him and it will never work.

So, I liked the leads, loved the supporting cast, what’s wrong with this movie? They do a nice job of setting up the Kirk and Molly dating situation but they don’t know what to do with them once they’re there. The scene I mentioned off the top, and its aftermath, represents the only believable jeopardy for this relationship. They introduce Molly’s jet-flying ex-boyfriend Cam but this falls well short of the intended target. Cam thinks Kirk is nothing more than Molly’s gay BFF and when he is set straight, he goes away and is never heard from again. And with him goes some dramatic plot points that this movie sorely needed.

They only thing keeping the lovers apart is Kirk doesn’t believe he is good enough for Molly. And Molly makes an admission as to why she wanted to date Kirk in the first place which is supposed to be a major revelation but is less than earth-shaking. So without anything significant really keeping them apart, it doesn’t take much to bring them back together. The third act is sloppy and erratic and stands out as a disappointment considering everything that came before it.

There is a lot to like in this movie. It is not a laugh out loud riot like say Wedding Crashers or The Hangover but it has its share of funny moments. We enjoy spending time with Kirk and Molly whenever they are on the screen. It’s just…how do you describe an experience that promises so much but just doesn’t deliver the big finish at the very end?

Ah yes...anti-climactic.

(I lied. THAT is the last one)

Shutter Island

2010-03-06T18:44:00.001-04:00

Me: Knock Knock.

You: Who’s there?

Me: Interrupting Cow.

You: Interrupting Co-

Me: (cutting you off) Mooooooo!

I told this joke to my eight year old nephew Jackson and my buddy Bruce last year. Jackson thought it was funny. Bruce thought it was hysterical and laughed uncontrollably for ten minutes. What conclusions can we draw from this? (1) Bruce has the sophisticated sense of humour of a grade schooler and (2) neither of them had heard this joke before. I can deduce this because if they had heard the joke before it would be nearly impossible to genuinely find it funny. A joke like this can only be funny if you don’t know what the punch line is going to be.

This same principle comes in to play with Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island, a dark and creepy nod to classic noir films of the past. I should note that there will be some small and big spoilers contained in this posting and the first small one is about to come right now. So if you haven’t seen it and want to see it completely fresh, stop reading right now. Are we good? Okay.

Shutter Island is a psychological thriller that relies on a big twist at the end to deliver its dramatic punch. Many people have written in to Roger Ebert and others like him complaining that this twist was blindsiding and ruined the movie experience for them. I can’t say whether I agree because I feel like Scorsese didn’t do a good enough job disguising the twist. I guessed it four minutes into film. So instead of a gripping engaging thriller, for me it played out like the world’s longest Knock Knock joke I’d heard many times before.

Shutter Island is a film that makes you question the veracity of what you’re seeing the whole time. We are introduced to Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) a U.S. Marshall who, along with his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo), is dispatched to an asylum for the criminally insane on an Island in Boston Harbour in 1954. They are launching an investigation into the disappearance of one of the patients. Teddy and Chuck have the somewhat limited co-operation of the people in charge of the facility including the head psychiatrist at the facility Dr. Cawley, played impressively by Sir Ben Kingsley. At a time when most of the patients are dealt with through primitive and barbaric treatments like lobotomies and the like, Dr. Cawley is pioneering a bold new program where they bring seriously delusional people back to sanity by indulging their delusions. Cawley and his staff play along, so speak, in the hopes of bringing the patients back to a state of reality.
During Teddy and Chuck’s investigation, we start to see flashbacks to Teddy’s previous war experiences, including one where he is one of the first on the scene at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland. Teddy appears to be suffering from PTSD although nobody would have diagnosed that at the time. This is not the only horrific events Teddy has to deal with. The escaped inmate is a woman who drowned all three of her kids in a lake near her house. This seems to only further trigger’s Teddy psychological trauma as it brings back stronger and more haunting flashbacks.

I think Martin Scorsese deserves a lot of credit for creating the dark and creepy atmosphere that envelops this film. The cinematography is done so everything seems dramatically under lit so much of the action exists in the shadows. This is contrasted nicely with how the film looks after the climax. When you know how the film ends this difference in the look and clarity of the image makes sense. But alas it is in the big reveal where the film falls apart for me.

MAJOR SPOLIER WARNING HERE

I am about to discuss the big twist in Shutter Island. If you don’t want the movie ruined do not read any further. I’m serious…are you ready? Okay.

Leonardo DiCaprio is dreamy and you will get lost in his eyes. Okay, this is not the actual spoiler but I was just testing to see if you would keep reading. Now, for real, here is the spoiler for this movie…proceed at your own risk.

Four minutes into the movie when they first mention that they are going to an asylum for the criminally insane I thought “I’ll bet Leo is one of the inmates” Then when Sir Ben goes to great lengths to explain that his process is to indulge inmates in their delusions I thought “Well there we go”. The woman who killed her children was not a patient but Teddy’s clinically depressed wife whom he killed after the incident. Unable to deal with the realities of what happened Teddy was sent to Shutter island where he lives constantly under the delusions that he is a Marshall again and investigating a big case at the asylum.

After Sir Ben confirmed my suspicions, I spent the remaining 115 minutes with the knowledge of what the big reveal would be. And if I figured it out, I’ll bet there are countless others who did the same.

The fact is that today’s movie-going audiences are more sophisticated than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Shutter Island tries to mine the same territory The Sixth Sense did more than a decade ago. At that time audiences were fooled even though the kid comes right and says “I see dead people only they don’t know there dead”. Today, most people would hear that and think “Bruce Willis is dead”. This is the major failing of Shutter Island. If you are able guess the twist, the movie just can’t deliver the suspense it needs to in order to be successful. What do you end up with instead?

Knock Knock.

The Best Year For Oscar

2010-03-06T17:52:00.001-04:00

The Academy Awards Roundtable is back by popular demand. I mean sure I just posted it 10 hours ago and we've received no comments on it yet but I have to assume everyone has read it and is clamoring for more. David wanted to know our opinion on the strongest Best Picture field ever. My first reaction was "That's personal and quite frankly none of your business!" But then I realized it could make for an interesting discussion. Let the debate begin.

David: Here's a question – what in your opinion was the Best Oscar year? In other words – the year with the highest number of quality pictures nominated for Best Picture.

Tony: Excellent question. For me the year has to have boasted five films that were all strong and have withstood the test of time. One weak sister in the group and it is no good. Case in point, the 1983 ceremonies nominated, Ghandi (Winner), ET, The Verdict and Tootsie. All incredibly strong. But the 5th that year was Missing which is pretty much a forgotten film. For my money I have to go with the 1995 ceremonies which had: Forrest Gump, Quiz Show, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Those are five classics which still stand up 15 years later.

Andre: I'd argue that the worst Best Picture year was in '77, for the '76 films. Network. All The President's Men. TAXI DRIVER. And your winner... Rocky. Going back, look at '67. In The Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Doctor Dolittle, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Strong field.

David: The years you both mention are ones I might have suggested. Incredible nominations.

I agree with Andre, that Best Picture Rocky really was the weakest of the bunch, And I Best Picture Forrest Gump was the weakest of its bunch too. Here is a case where two “popular” and “uplifting” films beat out darker, more challenging, and more artistic films. There were many years in every decade where this happened, so it’s not just these years.

Did voters in 1976/77 seriously think that Rocky was better than All the Presidents Men, Bound for Glory, Network and Taxi Driver? Was it a reaction to Vietnam and Watergate? The losing films all looked at the darker side of America, while Rocky was the fantasy that is the American Dream.

Did voters in 1994/95 think Forrest Gump was better than Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, and Four Weddings and a Funeral? With the exception of Four Weddings, the other three losers again looked at the darker side of life. Whereas Forrest, like Rocky, was a fantasy of the American dream, where the simpleton succeeds despite the odds against him.

1939 was an incredible year that included Best Picture nominees like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Mr.Smith Goes to Washingston, Stagecoach, Goodybe Mr.Chips – and five other films because it was a ten nominee year. Even though all those five are classics, as are a few of the rest of the ten, I won’t officially use that as my pick and instead go with the five nominees year of 1975 were the Best Picture nominees were One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Barry Lyndon, Nashville, Dog Day Afternoon, and a little picture known as Jaws.

Andre: To be clear, 76 was a weak Best Picture year only in the sense that there were so many strong nominees, and the winner was a poor choice or the weakest movie in the field. That happens more and more now that campaigning is such a big part of the Oscars. I defy you to tell me in all seriousness that Shakespeare in Love is a better film than Saving Private Ryan. Sure, seeing Gwyneth Paltrow naked is a plus in any film, but that pales in comparison to a recreation of the freakin'
invasion of Normandy.

Tony: Now if you could somehow combine the two in "Saving Private Shakespeare" where a half naked Gwyneth Paltrow storms the beaches of Normandy then sets off in search of Ben Affleck's British accent, I think you have Oscar gold!

David Is it just me or is Gwyneth more fetching since she got older and put on some weight? She didn’t do much for me when she was in her twenties but she was absolutely smokin’ in Iron Man.

Tony No argument here.

David Don't get me started on Saving Private Ryan. Not saying SIL is better, just that Ryan is very flawed story-wise. Brilliant re-creation of Normandy, can see why Spielberg got Best Director. But the actual story doesn't start until 40 minutes into the movie -- no other director would have been allowed to do that -- in the forties -- the Normandy sequence would be over in 15 minutes. And then there are so many plot problems, such as the old guy at the beginning who remembers the journey to save Ryan turns out to be Ryan himself at the end who not only was not on the journey to rescue himself but at no time did Tom Hanks have an opportunity to tell him about it. Lazy story-telling. Which is a surprise for Spielberg, go back and look at how tight his early films like Jaws and Close Encounters are story-wise.

Tony: An excellent point. I have to admit, that had not occurred to me before. How did Ryan know all the details of the journey?

Andre: Clearly, David hates our troops and cannot be trusted.

The Academy Awards Roundtable

2010-03-06T02:24:00.005-04:00

I have to admit I love the Academy Awards and nothing can dampen my enthusiasm for them. If Rob Lowe singing to Snow White didn't turn me off for good, then you know I am a true fan. Perhaps even more than watching the Oscars, I love the debate the inevitably leads up to the Awards Ceremony each year. This year I decided to corral the two sharpest movie minds I know (not named Rebekah) and engaged in some spirited debate about who will and should win Sunday night. Joining me in my discussions are:

David Widdicombe – An award winning screenwriter and film director from Toronto.

Andre Theriault – Lives in Fredericton, life long cinefile, keen observer of popular culture and my partner in the annual Only Fabulous Oscar Party Thrown By Two Straight Guys.

Tony: Guys, welcome to the roundtable and thank you for joining me.

David and Andre: Thank you for having us, Tony. It is the highest honour simply to be discussing films in your presence (Ed. Note – I am assuming this is what they would say at this point so this isn't an exact quote)

BEST PICTURE

Tony: If you had asked me two months ago I would have said Avatar but right now I think you're looking at The Hurt Locker. I think that Avatar is losing a lot of buzz and The Hurt Locker is a film that has the gravitas that the Oscar voters look for. Kind of reminds me of when Shakespeare in Love knocked off the favourite Saving Private Ryan in 1999.

David: For some reason, some potential voters think Avatar is anti-American, in that it’s the futuristic Americans wanting to destroy what is essentially an Eden-esque third world planet. Others think it a very simplistic but very beautiful looking cartoon (and JC will kill you if you say that in front of him). And other voters just really really don’t want to make JC King of Anything again. Hurt Locker wins the silver naked man.

Andre: I have to also go with The Hurt Locker on this one. My problem with Avatar was that, while the movie looked good and had some cool 3D special effects, the story just didn't do it for me. The Hurt Locker had a loose plot, to be sure, but I thought it was really effective at building and then releasing tension, over and over again. Since Oscar ballots are weighted this year, I'd pick Up In The Air as my second choice. Unlike Tony, I like that the movie didn't end in a neat little wrapped up bow. I enjoyed the ambiguity and in the light of the characters involed, the ending made sense. After that, I'd pick Inglorious Basterds, because who doesn't like to see Nazis get beaten up with baseball bats?

Tony: It's funny, we all agree on The Hurt Locker but none of us are crazy about that pick. Regarding Up In The Air, I think had there been a stronger indication with the ending, it would have won best picture. It didn`t have to have an ending ``all wrapped up in a bow`` which is the classic Hollywood ending. If it had even a hopeful ending it would have been sufficient to provide the sense of narrative satisfaction for the audience. I get the sense Reitmann was afraid of a classic happy ending and by choosing the open ambiguous ending, he may have cost himself the Best Picture Oscar.

David: Something we’re forgetting is this year there are 10 Best Picture nominees as opposed to 5. This was something that they did in the thirties but now seems like a marketing ploy to help overall box office. Is it creating more buzz? No. Some of these films will not win a thing. But will they dilute votes for some of the favorites? The voting is changed too. Instead of just selecting one film, you select your first pick, second pick, and third pick. It’s conceivable that everybody’s third pick film could win Best Picture. So, conceivably something like District 9 could win by a total fluke. And then all hell will break loose.

Andre: Has anyone heard the news stories popping up around The Hurt Locker lately? A producer who actively campaigned for the film by dissing Avatar had his tickets taken away. Some soldier is suing saying that his life's story was the basis of the film. All of this in the two weeks before the Oscars. Is it a sabotage campaign against the film, or just bad luck? Also, I missed my chance to say that The Hurt locker is a really explosive film that delivers more bang for your buck. Look for my new blog, "Groaner Film Reviews" coming soon. It's boffo!

Tony: I have heard that. The guys seems like he`s nuts…even by Hollywood Producer standards. And I want to see the Groaner Film Reviews blog like yesterday. What would be your review of The Wolfman?

Andre: It bleeeeeeewwwwwwww! OR It was a howling good time!

David: This is interesting. If Avatar wins, it will be the highest-grossing Best Picture ever. If Hurt Locker wins, it will be the lowest-grossing Best Picture ever.

Tony: And no matter who wins, Gladiator will still be the least deserving Best Picture ever!

David: I disagree with that. I would argue that The Sound of Music, Gigi, The Greatest Show on Earth, My Fair Lady, Forrest Gump (the other nominees were better), Terms of Endearment (the other nominees were better), Out of Africa (the other nominees were better) were even more least deserving. If you look at what Gladiator was up against, it was a weak year. (anything that won that year would not be very deserving).

Tony: Yeah…well…shut up!

David No...you shut up!

Tony: I feel like this debate has taken a turn. Moving on...

BEST DIRECTOR

Andre: I'm going to regret saying this, but I think Katheryn Bigelow is a lock. Even other directors who are nominated in this category, like James Cameron and Jason Reitman, have said publicly that they'd like her to win. She's won the Director's Guild award, and that's usually a good sign of Oscar victory. Plus, no one wants to see James Cameron jump on on stage and tell everyone "I see you!" or declare himself the king of the world once again.

David: This is where you’ll see who wins the EX-WARS. Avatar will win a Titanic boat-load of technical awards, and look of the film combined with its box-office success has left studios scrambling to change many of their upcoming features into 3-D and IMAX. Avatar is a ground-breaking achievement that will change the movie-going experience forever. It is probably a more complicated exercise in directing than Hurt Locker. And no woman has ever won the directing prize. Still, Bigelow won the Directors Guild Award and only a handful of times has the winner of that not won the Oscar. And I can’t see Best Film not having the Best Director. If an African-American man can be President than a woman can be Best Director. The time they are a-changin’, and about time. Bigelow wins.

Tony: And a woman can be President but only on 24. I agree that the Ex-Wars is an interesting angle here. If I had a vote I would vote for Lee Daniels for Precious but my prediction is that Katheryn Bigelow wins it for The Hurt Locker. She has been doing well winning most of the major director awards this season and I see no change here.

BEST ACTRESS

Tony: Okay so two categories and we all agree. Can we maybe mix it up a little here? If Sandra Bullock wins for The Blind Side she can thank the "long overdue for one" phenomenon for the win. People seem to want to recognize her work and while her performance was very good, it is not in the same category as Meryl Streep's in Julie & Julia. Both Bullock and Streep played real life women. The difference is when I was watching Julie & Julia, I was seeing Julia Child up on the screen. When I watched The Blind Side I knew I was watching Sandra Bullock. Streep should and will win.

David: Is Meryl Streep the greatest actress of all time? Isn’t there anything this woman can’t do? Maybe we should not allow her to act anymore, but make her cure cancer or bring about world peace. She’d probably accomplish both – and with a spot-on accent of some kind. Still, this ain’t gonna be Meryl’s last kick at the can. It might be the only time that Sandy Bullock gets this close to the podium, and she gives her best performance to date. Remember Julia Roberts ditching the romantic comedy stuff and winning for Erin Brockovich? The same thing could happen here. Bullock is the sentimental favorite. However, I do agree with Tony. You’re seeing Sandy Bullock on the screen, with Streep you’re seeing Julia Child. It’s the British way of disappearing completely into a role versus the American way of playing a version of yourself. I would not bet money on this one. I would just say that sometimes….deserves got nothing to do with it.

Andre: Here's why I think Sandra Bullock wins over Meryl Streep in this category. Steep is an amazing actress, probably the best of her generation. But the Academy is no longer primarily made up of members of her generation. The acting part of the Academy is younger than ever and has been handing out Oscars to younger actresses. Sure, Helen Mirren won for The Queen, but in Oscar's defence, it's Helen Mirren. Sure she's nominated this year, but since she won so recently, I doubt she'll win again for a movie no one has seen. Kate Winslet, Reese Witherspoon, Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, and Halle Berry have all won in the past decade. And Meryl Streep has been nominated a record 178 times. Give someone else a turn.

Tony: I tip my hat to David for (a) agreeing with me and (b) referencing Unforgiven in the process. David brings up an interesting point. It seems that more and more there are other political factors in who wins. The gap between who will win and who should win seems to be growing. I'm seeing a lot of "...they'll give it to so and so because they've never won one". I've even heard people say Meryl Streep should not win because she's won enough already. I think if this trend continues it will spell the end of the Oscars credibility. Meryl Streep's performance was so far ahead of Sandra Bullock's that if she does not win I will consider it the greatest Oscar injustice since Ralph Fiennes was passed over for Schindlers list in favor of Tommie Lee Jones. Andre, when you say `give someone else a turn`` are you suggesting they will give someone else a turn or they should give someone else a turn. One name that`s not being mentioned is Carrey Mulligan for An Education. She did an amazing job in a really beautiful film. She deserves more attention than what she is getting.

Andre: Let me be clear. Do I think Sandra Bullock is a better actress than Meryl Streep? No. I like her, though, She's funny and charming and so darned cute. And yes, I'm saying the will give her a turn, not that they should. But don't forget the "Golden Globes" rule; any actress who goes topless in a film increases her chances of winning an Oscar. Halle Berry and Gwyneth Paltrow both showed off their Golden Globes the year they won. I haven't seen enough of the performances to see if any the actress nominees went topless this year. Maybe that'll be the deciding factor.

BEST ACTOR

David: It’s Jeff Bridges’ time. Just like it was Mickey Rourke’s time last year. Oh, wait. Weird things do happen. Morgan Freeman is playing Nelson Mandela and people love George Clooney. Still, this isn’t a case of giving it to Pacino for “Hoo-Ha” just because he’s never won it, or Newman for Color of Money when he really should have got it for The Verdict or a handful of other roles. Bridges is giving one of his best performances ever, even though reviews of the film itself have been mixed. In my opinion, this year for Best Actor, The Dude Will Abide.

Andre: Hey, remember last year when everyone said that grizzled old actor Mickey Roarke was a lock for the Best Actor award? And then remember how Sean Penn won for Milk instead? Does it scare anyone else that grizzled old actor Jeff Bridges is supposedly a lock for this year's award? Could Colin Firth win this year in a second "straight-actor-pays-gay-character" role? Could Jeremy Renner come up the middle in a Hurt Locker sweep? Can I write an entire paragraph made up of questions?

David: Andre brings up and interesting point about Colin Firth. Will gay Academy members give him their votes en masse? Will all the Brits vote for him as he is well liked? Could there be an upset here, the way there was last year with Penn beating Rourke? Bridges has won every award so far except the British Academy Award – where Firth beat him. However, Firth is not known in the States the way Penn is, so for that reason, I think Bridges still wins.

Tony: Pressure from the Gay Mafia notwithstanding, I really feel strongly that this is Jeff Bridges year with his performance in Crazy Heart. The role is one that Oscar loves, The washed up has-been who is inspired by meeting someone who reminds him what it was like when he was great. As you guys both pointed out, Mickey Roarke came close to winning one with a similar archetype with The Wrestler last year. Bridges also benefits from the "long overdue for one" phenomenon which is alive and well with the Oscar voters.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Tony: Mo'Nique. 'nuff said.

David: Agree with Tony. Anytime someone known for comedy pulls a 180 and surprises you with a hidden dramatic performance of devastating power (not to mention fearlessness for not being afraid to appear so monstrous), that person deserves to win. Nuff said.

Andre: I also say Mo'Nique. Why? Name any one of the other supporting actress nominees without Googling it. Take a minute. Can't do it? That's why.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

David: You know it’s absolutely criminal that Christopher Plummer has never been nominated for an Oscar before now. He’s eighty years old for Chrissakes. He definitely should have been nominated many times before and he probably should have won for his performance in The Insider. Well, hopefully he’s happy with the nomination, because unless it’s a sentimental old guy lifetime achievement award disguised as a supporting acting award (see Jack Palance/James Coburn), he ain’t winning. Christoph Waltz has won everything in this category so far and he’s gonna keep rolling over the competition to the Oscar win and eventually world domination.

Andre: If the Oscars are truly meant for rewarding the year's best performances, then yes, Christoph Waltz wins hands down. As soon as I saw Inglorious Basterds, I thought he would win the Oscar in this category. But sometimes, Oscar likes to reward nominees for a lifetime of work. Was Al Pacino's performance in Scent of a Woman Oscar-worthy? Probably not. But his performances as Michael Corleone were, and since he didn't win for those, boo-yah! So this year, there's a chance Christopher Plumber will win. I may be the only person who thinks this, but since he's never even been nominated, they may give him this as a lifetime achievement award. Don't be surprised if they start to say, "And the award goes to Cristoph... er Plumber", and then the Nazi guy has to sit down. After all, who deserves an Oscar more - a Nazi, or a guy who helped his singing children escape from the Nazis? Captain Von Trapp, that's who.

Tony: Here`s why I think it has to be Christoph Waltz. In Inglorious Basterds he acted in four languages (German, French, English, Italian). Now Christopher Plummer has been shafted by the Academy and in any other year I would think they would want to correct this. But how do you not recognize that performance by waltz. Be very surprised if it goes to anyone else.

EPILOGUE

Tony: Well guys that covers six major categories and 2,640 words. I think a solid effort for the first roundtable. I hope we can do this again soon.

David and Andre: Tony, in everyone`s life there is one small snippet of time that defines your entire existance and stands alone above all other life experiences. It goes without saying that for us, this is that life-defining event. We will be forever changed because of it. (Ed. Note: You can probably guess…)

Apologies to Dead Heat

2010-03-02T16:20:00.001-04:00

I feel like I owe the film Dead Heat an apology after citing it in my review of Cop Out as an example of a forgettable buddy cop film. The movie I meant to cite was "Red Heat" in which James Belushi plays a tough Chicago Cop and Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Soviet cop. Dead Heat was nothing to write home about but was not nearly the steaming pile of dog excrement that was "Red Heat".

I will edit the blog to correct this mistake but for those who have already read it, I apologize for the mistake. To Dead Heat I apologize once more.

And to Red Heat, I apologize for nothing! You suck!

Cop Out

2010-03-02T01:44:00.004-04:00

In the opening scene of Kevin Smith’s buddy cop film, Cop Out, Detective Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) explains to his partner that his interrogation techniques are homage to famous movies. Of course, Hodges repeatedly mispronounces it HOMM-age. This bit is there in part to set up the subsequent sequence where Hodges gets information from a suspect by quoting nearly every movie released in the last 25 years. My personal favorite was including the line “Nobody puts baby in a corner” in a police interrogation. But I think there is something more significant to introducing the concept of homage at the very outset of this movie. This film is itself homage to the 80’s cop movies that were staples of my movie-going adolescence.

So what is the net result? Basically it breaks down like this:

The good news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.

The bad news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.

We tend to forget that not all of those films that fell into that genre were classics. Most of them weren’t really that good. For every 48 Hours (1982) and Lethal Weapon (1987) that I loved, I had to sit through fifteen like Red Heat (1988, James Belushi, Arnold Schwarzenegger). These boasted cookie cutter plotlines involving a foreign drug Kingpin that ended with a showdown where the cops picked off the Kingpin’s henchmen in ascending order of importance before killing the head honcho himself after a tense stand-off.

So while there is not as much depth to this movie as I might have hoped, I think the critics who have trashed it have missed the boat. There is a lot that I thought was very well done in this movie. Just when I thought I had seen everything that Seann William Scott had to offer, he raised his game significantly in this film. Scott plays a type of cat burglar who swipes the extremely valuable baseball card owned by Hodges partner Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis). Hodges and Monroe later catch Scott’s character and the three share car ride that provides some solid laughs. Laughs that I don’t believe were in the script but rather came from the genuine chemistry that Scott and Morgan had onscreen.

This is important because Morgan and Willis had zero chemistry on the screen. At best you could describe Willis’ performance as understated. In reality though, you were watching an actor going through the motions simply to pick up a paycheck. This was the least engaging I have ever seen Bruce Willis in a film and when he is the dead fish up on the screen, you know there is something very wrong happening here. It is unfortunate because those who shared the screen with him did a nice job by and large. I liked the duo of Kevin Pollack and Adam Brody who played the in house police rivals to Hodges and Monroe. The first time we see the four of them together on screen produces some genuine laughs. I wish Pollack and Brody had more screen time in the film.

Also falling into that category was Rashida Jones who played Hodges’ devoted and loving wife. Jones is luminescent on the screen and captures your attention in every scene she is in. Sadly Jones came off as underutilized here in a script that required nothing more of her than to assure her over-the-top jealous husband that she was not having an affair. It seemed like she did that five or six times throughout the movie. I kept waiting for the big payoff to this elaborate setup and when the end credits finally rolled, I was disappointed to say the least.

Much has been made by the fact that this is Kevin Smith’s first studio film from a script he did not write. I think if Smith made a misstep with Cop Out it’s not giving it more of a feeling of being a Kevin Smith film. Smith has made his career by combining broad and even juvenile comedy with sensitive and poignant young adult drama. Chasing Amy and Dogma were perhaps two of his finest examples of this touch. Cop Out doesn’t have that second layer that makes us care deeply for his characters. Jimmy Monroe needs to get his baseball card back so he can pay for his daughter’s wedding. Paul Hodges is afraid his wife is having an affair. This is as deep as this movie gets in developing it main characters. For this I lay the blame with the screenwriters and not Smith himself. I think this movie would have been better off with the Kevin Smith re-write of this script. We would have had all that works in the love letter to 80’s cop films along with some much need character development.

In the end, Smith gets pretty much all he can out of this premise and script, given the fact that Willis’ charisma was AWOL during the entire film. There is a plot that while thin and predictable does hold together from beginning til end. There are nice moments with Sean William Scott where we see how much fun this genre can be. The movie was intended to be silly fun with the prerequisite cop scenes that won’t make you think too hard and in that context, it delivers on its promise.

Circumstances Under Which To See This Movie: While out on a long walk on the beach you trip over something which turns out to be a magic lantern containing a genie. He grants you your one wish which is to be a thirteen year old boy. You then find yourself wanting to see a movie you would appreciate with your new found perspective and taste. Under these circumstances I would suggest seeing Cop Out.

Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

2010-02-26T13:30:00.002-04:00

Precious is a truly remarkable film mainly for what is not on the screen rather than what is. I was very apprehensive about seeing this movie. The subject matter is as disturbing as anything I can recall in the last little while. Newcomer Gabourey Sidibe plays Clarice "Precious" Jones, a 16 year old junior high school student who is sexually abused by her father and physically and emotionally abused by her mother. She has no friends in school and is constantly picked on for her obesity. She already has one child fathered by her own father and as the movie begins, we soon discover there is a second on the way. She lives in a hell few can imagine and the thought of going into the world with her seemed daunting as a viewer.

But this is where director Lee Daniels earned his best director Oscar nomination. During the times when a horrible instance of abuse is about to happen, we cut to the fantasy world Precious inhabits during these unspeakably awful times. Suddenly we are transported to a red carpet movie premiere where adoring fans call out for autographs from Precious. These fantasy sequences play out is rich vibrant colours which serve as a start contrast to the dull muted tones we see in her reality. This first person POV coping mechanism shields the audience as much as it does Precious herself. And they establish another important element without which the movie would not work – hope. Despite all that is wrong with her life we get the sense that Precious still holds out the faintest bit of hope that there is a better life out there.

So to answer the question – is this movie hard to watch? At times yes, but not as much as you would think.

The bulk of the story, set in Harlem in 1987, involves Precious going to a special school called "Each One Teach One." Here they take illiterate girls and bring them up to a level where they can acquire their GED. Even the decision to go to this school is tortuous for Precious. We get the sense that she is bright and likes school and yet is still unable to read or write. The reason soon becomes apparent when we meet Mary, her monster of a mother played by Mo'Nique. Mary not only frowns upon schooling for Precious, she is violently opposed to it. The very mention of attending the school sends Mary intro a screaming rampage where she tells Precious "School ain't going to help none, get your ass down to Welfare!"

Remarkably, Precious attends the school anyway and we soon see her starting to read and write in her journal. She is forming connections with her classmates and teachers and we are thrilled to be going on this journey with her. But Daniels is cognisant to not let us forget of the harsh realities that still exist for her. Just when we feel like we're watching the feel good story of the year, we get doused with the icy waters of her circumstances. Her schooling gets interrupted when she goes into labour with her father's child. She is now faced with a choice of giving up the baby and going back to school or keeping the baby and making it on her own. For someone who wants to be a good mother to her baby, this is not an easy choice.

Some of the most powerful moments in this film exist between Precious and her mother. Mo'Nique plays Mary with a hatred and bitterness for her own daughter that is unfathomable. I used the term "monster" before but really there is no other word that applies. Mary was perhaps the most terrifying and intimidating screen presence not named "Darth" or "Sith". Mo'Nique won the Golden Globe for this performance and if she doesn't win the Support Actress Oscar, a criminal investigation should be launched immediately. There is one scene in particular that is chilling. Precious brings her new baby home to Mary and Mary wants to hold him. We know she hates Precious for "stealing her man" so we fear for the safety of the baby. This scene serves as an example of how dramatic tension can be created with character rather than action sequences. It was as tense as anything I can recall in the theatre.

Mo'Nique is not the only excellent supporting player in this film. Daniels has a knack for finding people who can inhabit a role and make us forget the famous person playing them on the screen. Most noteworthy is the supporting performance turned in by Mariah Carey. Yes, THAT Mariah Carey. The movie was two-thirds of the way through before it clicked in for me who she was. Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write. Mariah Carey was very good in this film. Maybe there really is a hero that lies in her. Joining Carey is Lenny Kravitz who turns in a nice performance as Nurse John.

I thought Daniels struck a nice tone with ending, something that with a story like this is not easy at all. (TINIEST SPOILER WARNINGS HERE) This is not a happy ever after story but we are left feeling upbeat and positive at the end. The dragon Precious has to slay may seem insignificant compared to other films, but in this story we are left with the feeling that she just climbed Everest.

This will sound like cliché but this movie really is a story of the triumph of the human spirit.

Circumstances Under Which You Should See This Movie: You are a carbon-based life form.

Up In The Air

2010-02-24T17:37:00.003-04:00

With most of the civilized world in the grip of Olympic fever these days, I'll give you my impression of Jason Reitman's Up in the Air in terms you can understand. Upon first viewing of this film I felt like I was watching a figure skater on top of their game. Everything about it was fresh, graceful, and moving. I believed that I was watching something truly special until...it happened. Like that figure skater with the seemingly flawless performance, Up in the Air stumbled right at the end. Was the stumble enough to ruin the entire performance? Probably not. But you can't help but think how good it could have been if it was just able to stick the landing.

This movie tells the story of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) a man who loves his job and everything that surrounds it more than anything else in life. This is not insignificant when you consider that he has one of the least enviable jobs in the world. He is a gun for hire in firing people in the business world. Clooney is able to portray Bingham as a man who believes there is dignity in what he does. We get the sense he believes what he says when he tells the recently canned, "Anybody who ever built an empire, or changed the world, sat where you are now. And it's because they sat there that they were able to do it."

The only thing more important to Bingham than the job itself is the lifestyle that accompanies it. The job requires he be on the road for more than 320 days a year and for Bingham, this is heaven. His greatest source of pride is his elite status with airlines, hotels and car rental agencies. This is a man so enamoured with the don't-be-tied-down lifestyle that he gives motivational speeches instructing people on how to free themselves of the things weighing them down in the world.

Bingham's perfect world order starts to unravel when he meets two women who will affect his life in different ways. The first is Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) whom Bingham meets one night while drinking alone in a hotel bar. The two use comparing elite status plans as a sort of foreplay and soon end up back in his room. Immediately, Bingham is taken by the beautiful woman who seems to get him in a way other women don't.

The second is Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) is a recent top-of-her-class Ivy Leaguer who the company has brought in to shake up the termination business. Her idea is to set up a process where people are fired via a video conferencing system. She believes that a script can be developed so anyone could fire someone simply by navigating this new system. Naturally, Bingham hates, hates, hates this idea and not just because it threatens to destroy his perfect lifestyle. He genuinely believes the people getting fired deserve to have that human touch during the process. Bingham's boss, played by Jason Bateman, convinces Bingham to take Keener out on the road and show her the ropes.

This is where what is really great about Up in the Air really starts to shine through. Only upon seeing this movie for a second time did I appreciate the fact that this story is as much about Natalie's journey as it is Bingham's. What this movie does exceptionally well is set up Keener and Bingham as polar opposites in every way. They bicker like a married couple but not in a cliché way like you see in many movies today. There is no feeling that their bickering is masking the fact that they are really in love with each other. It comes from the fact that they both possess the capability to be "soft" and "cold". Keener can't fathom why Bingham never wants to get married or have kids. He makes the case that he has all the companionship he requires and in the end, everyone dies alone anyway. Some of this movie's best moments are when Keener and Bingham are sparring over love and relationships. In this instance, she makes the case for love and marriage while he is the cold one, stating that marriage is for suckers.

But when it comes to their views on work, there is a role reversal which gives both characters some depth. Now it is Bingham who is the "soft" one as he continues to insist that the job can only be done properly face to face. There is something cold and even cruel about doing what they do in a video conference. Keener is the "cold" one looking at the process only in terms of what is best for the company's bottom line. As the movie goes on we see the effect that they have on each other. We can see Keener's doubts start to creep in as she experiences the harsh realities of firing people up close. And while Bingham may not admit to subscribing to her world view in matters of the heart, his relationship with Alex starts to look more and more like a traditional relationship. It even gets to the point where Bingham asks Alex to be his date at sister's wedding saying that for once he doesn't want to be the guy by himself at a wedding.

And this is subtle transformation is why I believe Reitman stumbles a bit at the end. Up until this point, the movie does a flawless job of establishing Bingham's world and then showing how it slowly starts to unravel for him. We get the sense that perhaps he is no longer satisfied being locked away in his solitary existence and that he may see a future with Alex. Without giving away too much about how the movie ends, I can say that the stumble occurs in the vagueness of the ending. Has he changed or is the same as he was at the beginning? You'll have to watch and judge for yourself but I've seen the movie twice and I can't say for sure. There are those who prefer open endings but I'm not a fan. And in the end, this is the one stumble in the performance. But when you look at the film in terms of the journey that both Bingham and Keener experience and the effect they have on each other's lives, the stumble doesn't seem as significant.

Circumstances Under Which You Should See This Movie: You're aching to see a good movie with solid performance free of the usual Hollywood clichés. Under these circumstances I would suggest seeing Up in the Air.

Valentine’s Day

2010-02-21T15:08:00.001-04:00

Remember the early days of photocopiers? You could duplicate a document and it would be an exact replica of that document only just a little imperfect. You could see smudge marks and the paper wouldn't be as clear as with the original. Then if you made a copy of the copy, it was even further away from the original. Keep making copies from copies and soon what you were left with is a greatly inferior product which is almost unrecognizable from the original. This process is what I was reminded of after seeing Valentine's Day.

In 2003, the team behind Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill came up with the ensemble multi-storyline romantic comedy Love Actually. Due in large part to the skilful writing and directing of Richard Curtis, this became a huge success both critically and financially and created the original which would others would inevitably copy. Last year's He's Just Not that Into You, was the first generation copy. Not quite as sharp as the original but sufficiently funny and sweet when it needed to be. Watching Valentine's Day, I felt like I was watching a seventh generation copy. You could see the connection between it and the original but the difference in quality was remarkable.

Valentine's Day is directed by Gary Marshall who treats it like an episode of This Is Your Life, bringing back an all-star cast from his previous films. Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman) appears as a soldier returning home for one day to spend Valentine`s Day with someone special. Anne Hathaway (The Princess Diaries) plays a recent English Lit grad who struggles with juggling jobs as a receptionist and a phone sex worker. All while trying to keep the latter from her new boyfriend played by Toper Grace. Other storylines linclude:

A flower shop owner (Ashton Kutcher) who proposes to his girlfriend (Jessica Alba) only to have that proposal met with a lukewarm reception.
An elementary school teacher (Jennifer Garner) decides to surprise her dreamy doctor boyfriend (Patrick Dempsey , like I had to tell you) and ends up getting a surprise of her own.
An aging Pro football quarterback (Eric Dane) decides to use Valentine's Day to make a shocking announcement. Without giving it away, picture Brett Favre meets Johnny Weir. It`s faaaaabulous!
A fifth grader desperately tries to get flowers to the object of his affection. She must know how he truly feels.
A sports reporter (Jamie Foxx) is assigned to do a man-on-the-street interview on the meaning of Valentine's day and makes a connection with a PR agent (Jessica Biel)who is down on love and hates Valentine`s Day.

And that`s not even all of the superstars and their storylines. I still haven`t covered Bradley Cooper, Queen Latifa, George Lopez, Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner, and Shirley McLain and Hector Elizondo. If you`re as bored of reading about the all-star cast as I am of writing about it, you start to get a picture of where this movie went wrong. In this instance, more is not necessarily merrier.

What the filmmakers failed to appreciate is that for the audience to get invested in the lives of these people we need to spend enough time to get to know them and then care when their lives start spiralling out of control. And when you only have so many minutes of screen time, it is nearly impossible to give these characters enough breathing room to make their journeys seem authentic. What's unfortunate is it's not like there weren't stories that could have been really interesting.

With the Eric Dane QB character, it would have been really fascinating to see where that storyline would have developed after he made his big announcement. Unfortunately the only thing we see with him after that is the reveal of who his Valentine is. I really liked the development of the Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway relationship. But because of too much time wasted on say the adorable but pointless storyline of the two Taylors, the Toper/Anne storyline had to take huge shortcuts that undermined its effectiveness. The same applies to the realization that Ashton Kutcher and Jennifer Garner make. Because they have to bring it in for a landing sooner than it really should, it detracts from the emotional impact it has on the audience.

It's not just the oversaturation of A-list talent that holds this back from being on par with a Love Actually. A lot of the time, the comedy comes off as sit-com hacky. Ashton Kutcher tells his friend how he loves this day because everyone of happy and filled with the spirit of love. Then he pulls out into traffic and almost collides with another driver who promptly screams at him and chews him out. An obvious and flat punch line. The first time we see Anne Hathaway doing her phone sex job, she is on her cell phone outside an apartment building and within earshot of a middle aged woman in a bathrobe. When Hathaway makes mention of a three-way, the woman says "Let me get freshened up and I'll be right there." I almost expected to hear the CBS laugh track.

Valentine's Day is not a terrible movie. It's just not a very good one either. It is light and enjoyable on a surface level and there are times when you smile at the adorable antics up on the screen. It's just sad that with all that star power, this is the highest they could raise the bar.

Circumstances Under Which You Should See This Movie: You're the number one golfer in the world and for some reason you find yourself in a position where you have a lot of making up to do with your wife. She loves light fluffy "chick flicks" and she wants you to take her out to the movies. You are afraid this may not be what you hoped for in a movie but you have no more capital in the marriage and must do pretty much anything she says for the rest of your lives. Under these circumstances, I would suggest you see Valentine's Day.

The Wolfman

2010-02-15T00:33:00.003-04:00

Let The Wolfman serve as exhibit "A" of a theory I've purported for a while now. If you have a monster movie, it will only work if the monster is the bad guy. It is nearly impossible to have a story work where the protagonist transforms into a rampaging Monster.

Ang Lee couldn't pull it off when he tried to launch The Hulk franchise in 2003. Louis Leterrier couldn't do it when he tried to reboot the same franchise five years later with The Incredible Hulk. And the recent Wolfman movie falls short for the exact same reason the others did. No matter how charming or charismatic the man (Eric Bana, Edward Norton, or Benico del Toro) may be, the monster can do nothing but grunt, growl, and destroy things. Ultimately, this makes for a lousy hero. We can't root for, empathise, or identify with a rampaging monster. And since the Monster can't communicate, there is no way to advance the story in a meaningful way.

The latest film to attempt the monster-as-protagonist vehicle is The Wolfman, Joe Johnston's remake of the 1941 horror classic. This movie stays true to the original to the point of keeping the same character names and premise. Lawrence Talbot (del Toro) learns of his brother's death and returns home to England to his family's spooky mansion. While investigating his brother's death, he is attacked and bitten by the Wolfman. Gypsies save his life but inform him that once bitten, he will forever turn into the beast himself.

I will give The Wolfman this, the attack scenes are believable and sufficiently gory. Johnston does not hold back in showing the brutality and the savagery of the Wolfman. The problem is, there is little else this movie has going for it.

Emily Blunt is wasted in a film that forgets she is there for a good chunk of the movie. As Gwen, the grieving fiancé of Lawrence's late brother Ben, Blunt does a very nice job with the scenes she has. It appears as if there is supposed to be a love story developing between Lawrence and Gwen but this gets shoved to the side when Lawrence is too busy eating people's guts. Then when Lawrence needs help, he finds Gwen and suddenly, they're in love (or something like it). We're to believe that she is not intimidated by his monstrous alter ego because she sees the true beauty within him. This might be believable if they had spent more than seven minutes of screen time together up to this point.

The ultimate undoing of this film was that it was just plain boring for too much of the time. And that is saying something for a period monster movie with a romantic subplot. The truth is, I really couldn't care what happened to him. I should have been desperately rooting for them to find a cure for his "wolfitis" so he and Gwen could be together. But I didn't care if they lived happily ever after or he dined on her entrails. And that is the surest sign you have a movie that doesn't work.

I could tell early on I was bored because I kept thinking of scenes I wanted to see that were included in better movies in the genre. The first time I saw the wolfman in a full shot, my mind went immediately to Teen Wolf (1985). So instead of being frightened of the scary wolfman on the screen, all I could think is "He's probably really awesome at basketball. I'd love to see this wolfman dunk on a couple of dudes!"

Not knowing the wolfman mythology as well as I do, say vampire mythology, I found parts of this movie to be very informative. I have collected some wolfman rules should any of you suddenly find yourselves being transformed into wolfmen.

RULE #1 – WOLFMEN ALWAYS EXIT A BUILDING BY JUMPING OUT THE NEAREST CLOSED WINDOW. I don't know what wolfmen have against walking out an open door but clearly it is never done. You would think these guys have stock in the local door and window company the way they shatter windows whenever leaving a building. Whatever the reason, this appears to be a hard and fast rule.

RULE #2 – WOLFMEN MUST GET RE-DRESSED BEFORE APPEARING AS HUMAN THE MORNING AFTER. It seems every time a guy transforms into the wolfman, we see him breaking through and tearing off his human clothes. But when we see him the next morning in human form for, what can only be described as the "wolfman walk of shame," he is fully dressed in those same clothes. Wolfmen must be very bashful about their bodies. I guess it's okay to eat the guts of any man woman or child who crosses your path but appearing nude in public is socially unacceptable.

RULE #3 - WOLFMEN HAVE ONLY ONE WAY OF SETTLING DISPUTES. Becoming a wolfman will pretty much spell the end of your career in conflict resolution. Once you become of full-fledged wolfman, you have only one way of settling disputes and it does not involve mediation. Not unless, mediation is a code word for disembowelment. But that seems unlikely.

Circumstance under which you should see this movie: You really want to drop $12 but you don't want to be saddled with all that story and character development. Ideally, you're just looking for some CGI gore and the occasional wolfman on wolfman brouhaha . Under these circumstances, I would suggest watching this film.

Five Movies To Get You In The Olympic Spirit

2010-02-12T19:48:00.001-04:00

There is an epidemic spreading across Canada and it has me greatly concerned. With the Olympics now upon us, I fear many Canadians are suffering from a condition that medical experts call Olympics Hype Deficiency (OHD). OHD occurs when you find yourself not completely jacked for the upcoming Winter Olympiad.

The leading cause of OHD is often a lack of television network promotions in the weeks and months leading up to the games. Perhaps if CTV and TSN had bothered to let us know that the Olympics were coming to Vancouver this February, we would not be in this state.

How can you tell if you suffer from OHD? It's easy, just name aloud the Jamaican born member of Canada's bobsleigh team. I'll wait, go ahead.

Any time now.

I'm sorry but since you didn't immediately name Lascelles Brown, I'm going to have to conclude that you are not sufficiently jacked for these Olympics.

To cure what ails you, I suggest the five movies that will get you in the Olympic spirit. I should note that these are not necessarily the five best movies involving the Olympics. Munich (2005) for example is an excellent movie but not a real spirit booster. This movie will make your Olympic spirit want to crawl in to bed with a tub of Chunky Monkey ice cream and not come out for three weeks.

So here in ascending order are the five movies to get you in the Olympic Spirit:

5. BLADES OF GLORY (2007)

This is not a great movie. Heck, I'm not even sure if this is a good movie. But it is fun and certainly captures the drive and desire of making it to the Winter Olympics. Will Ferrell and Jon Heder are very funny and are complimented by excellent supporting performances by real life husband and wife comedy duo Will Arnett and Amy Poeller. I thought Jenna Fischer gave an underrated and overlooked comedic performance in this movie.

4. THE CUTTING EDGE (1992)

If you love figure skating movies and Blades of Glory is just a little too silly for you, watch The Cutting Edge with D.B. Sweeny and Moira Kelly. Sweeny plays Doug Dorsey, a former hockey player driven out of the game after colliding with figure skater Kate Mosely (Kelly) at the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics. As training begins for the 1992 Games, Mosely can't find a partner who will work with her and Dorsey is relegated to playing semi-pro hockey. Mosely's coach tracks down Dorsey and convinces him to be her partner and get one last shot at Olympic Glory. Can the spoiled skater and gruff hockey player find a way to work together to achieve their dreams both on and off the ice? You pretty much know the answer but it is a decent film if you are a fan of the sport.

3. COOL RUNNINGS (1993)

With Canada boasting an actual Jamaican bobsledder on our 2010 team, how can I not include Cool Runnings on the list. Many people fondly recall this movie as the funny true-life account of the Jamaican bobsled team that competed at the 1988 Calgary Winter Games. This movie has even more sentimental value for me in that I consider it to be John Candy's last really good film. Candy played the coach who was charged with taking a group of novices who had never seen snow before and turning them into genuine Olympic bobsledders. This movie was better than I expected at the time and still holds up more than 15 years later.

2. CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981)

This film is to Olympic movies as the Rose Bowl is to college football games. The grand-daddy of them all! Had we been on the cusp of the Summer Olympics, this may have found its way to the top of the list. And while this will do nothing to get you pumped for snow boarding, hockey and figure skating, it is a beautiful movie about the Olympic Spirit of sportsmanship within competition. It tells the true story of two British sprinters at the 1924 Olympics. Eric is a devout Scottish Missionary who runs because he knows it pleases God. Eric is Jewish and runs to escape prejudice and cement his place in society. The crux of the film involves Eric's dilemma about running on a Sunday. He runs to please God but he won't run on the Sabbath. This is an excellent blend of sports, racial tensions, and human drama. If you have not seen this movie, do so soon.

1. MIRACLE (2004)

I know, I know. It's blasphemous to promote a movie about the Americans winning hockey gold but the truth is, this is a really good movie. If this movie can't get you pumped about the Winter Olympics then you will never be cured of your OHD. Kurt Russell takes on the role of Herb Brooks, the tough and demanding coach who led a group of college kids in one of the greatest single game upsets in hockey history. This movie does a nice job of illustrating the biggest challenge the Americans had which was overcoming their tribal differences. In the late 1970's there were only two American hotbeds of hockey – Boston and Minnesota. The Boston kids and the Minnesota kids didn't much like each other and getting them to play as one cohesive unit was Brook's biggest challenge. If you haven't seen it, now is the time to give this a look.

That's it I've done all I can do to combat OHD. The rest is up to you. I do see a day when OHD is no longer hanging over us like a dark cloud. I see a day when everyone from coast to coast is sufficiently jacked about the Olympics. Why am I so optimistic? Well, to answer Al Michael's 30 year old question...yes, I believe in miracles.

Think I've left a classic off the list? Feel free to tell me all about it in the comments box.

From Paris With Love

2010-02-10T20:51:00.000-04:00

From Paris With Love is pornography for the National Rifle Association. I don’t think that’s an accident because reviewing this film is not unlike what a review for a pornographic movie would be like:

...we meet a couple of one-dimensional characters, there is bad dialogue with unforgiveable double entrendre, there is a razor-thin plotline, and then every ten minutes or so the “good stuff” happens. More bad dialogue, more scenes with no intent of developing the story and then in another ten minutes, more “good stuff”

I put “good stuff” in quotes because much like a porno, whether it really is good stuff or not is in the eye of the viewer. In this movie, the “good stuff” involves Charlie Wax, played by a bald and goateed John Travolta, killing bad guys like he’s getting paid by the corpse. The body count made me feel like I was watching somebody play Grand Theft Auto rather than watching a major motion picture. But I get the feeling director Pierre Morel (Taken, 2008) knows he has nothing more here than a hollow shoot ‘em up, so he may as well get his money’s worth.

If only the audience could say the same.

Before I go on, I want to debunk something I’ve been reading on the boards and have been hearing for years. Defenders of this movie and others like it chastise critics for being too hard on what is supposed to be merely a popcorn movie. As an action movie, they believe it is not supposed to hold up to any form of critical analysis and anyone who does so is a pointy-headed academic type who should stick to watching “art” movies.

Let me state unequivocally that people who hold this point of view are ill-informed at best, but most likely, are just morons. Two of the best movie-going experiences of my adolescence were Lethal Weapon (1987) and Die Hard (1988). These had every bit of shoot-the-bad-guys enjoyment as the current crop of action movies. What made these movies great was the filmmakers used plot, story and character development as a frame on which to hang the action set-pieces. We genuinely cared what happened to Martin Riggs and John McLane. That’s what created the suspense. Those movies shone under critical analysis and they are the gold standard for all that follows in the genre.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that From Paris with Love fails miserably because there is no plot, story or character development to speak of. In the opening scenes, we meet James Reece (played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers), the assistant to the American Ambassador to France who moonlights as an aspiring special ops spy. After completing a routine mission which is seemingly beneath him, he gets the call to step up to the big leagues. He is to pick up his new partner at the Paris Airport and assist him in whatever needs to be done. At the airport we meet Charlie, who shows us he’s cool by being loud and defiant to the French Customs officers who are detaining him. Charlie wonders how they can mistreat an American after they saved France’s bacon in not one, but two world wars. What did I say about porn for the NRA?

This launches the buddy cop portion of the film, and here is where the wheels simply fall off. One major reason is that I don’t know who the main character is. It sets us up with James (clever name for a wannabe spy), but as soon as Charlie enters the film, he completely dominates it. This relegates the guy we are supposed to care about into supporting role territory. This could be okay except that Charlie nothing more than a one-dimensional caricature of an action movie hero.

There is an attempt to portray James as someone who dreams of being a big-time spy but has a hard time (literally) pulling the trigger when it is crunch time. The only problem is that the way is played out at the end is cringe-worthy. It is so bad, you almost wish they hadn’t tried. Without giving away too much, it involves James trying to sweet-talk a suicide bomber out of detonating. Need I say more?

The other fatal flaw with this film is the complete absence of any type of villain. Here is the Roger Ebert rule with this genre – the action-suspense movie is only as strong as the “bad guy”. Again, think of Die Hard as the classic example. To this day I can’t see Alan Rickman without getting the chills just a little bit. Here, there isn’t any one character vying to be the villain. And the one person who gets portrayed in the role of antagonist comes off as silly as they do predictable.

The movie has taken a lot of ribbing for having the John Travolta character say he has to have a “Royale with cheese” whenever he is in Paris. I think that was entirely appropriate for the movie. It is intended as a clever wink to Pulp Fiction, but I think they stumbled ass-backwards into one piece of symbolism that actually works. This movie is a lot like a quarter-pounder. When you are experiencing it, you might convince yourself you are enjoying it, but ultimately, all it does is leave you unsatisfied and craving a real meal. This movie makes you long for the action and character development we saw in Pulp Fiction. The title (a not-so-subtle nod to the Bond franchise) makes us wish we were watching the fun and impressive action sequences of a James Bond film. And the attempts at action hero cool lines clang like Rasheed Wallace’s three-point attempts when they are supposed to sound as clever and spontaneous as the lines shot out by Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

From Paris With Love; I know Die Hard. I grew up on Die Hard. You are no Die hard!

Circumstances Under Which You Should Watch This Movie: It’s the year 2021, you are home alone with the television on Peachtree TV and they are running this movie in the middle of the afternoon. Shoddy construction results in the sudden crumbling of your house leaving you trapped under heavy debris while miraculously the television is still functional. The remote is now 20 feet away and to retrieve it would require chewing off your own leg. Under these circumstances, I would suggest watching From Paris With Love.

Guess Who's Coming to the Blogosphere?

2010-02-09T22:02:00.000-04:00

If you're like me, you surf the net and think "This is all well and good but what the internet really needs is another blog." Well fret no more, your prayers have been answered. Today I am excited to unveil "Seluke's Movie Reviews" a blog which will, on a regular basis...wait for it....review movies.

Now you're probably thinking "Great because the one thing I could never find online is an unqualified yahoo weighing in on all things pop culture." Let me make two observations here: (1) you sound quite cynical and were likely not hugged enough as a child and (2) I would like to think that the one thing I bring to the table is bone fide credentials.

So who am I? I am a professional screenwriter, story editor, and producer who has been writing and making films for nearly 15 years. I have sold screenplays to some of the top producers in the country and have given workshops on screenwriting and story deconstruction. Currently I am reviewing films for CBC Information Morning.

What I would like to put out in the universe is an analysis of the current releases that looks beyond just whether or not they are worth plunking down the $12. More than just a thumbs up or thumbs down, I think people deserve to know if a movie works, why it works and what they can expect. And if it is not worth the $12, why it is and where exactly it falls short. I don't believe it is all a matter of opinion. My experience is that a story (in either the script or screen level) works or it doesn't. My job is to find the answer and share it with anyone who cares.

I recognize not everyone is going to agree with what I am going to say about these movies. In fact there is a whole segment of society which does not see eye to eye with me. I coined a phrase for this group of people - "idiots". These people cannot be taken lightly. Idiots are a big part of the movie going public. How else can one explain the box office success of Dane Cook?

Truthfully I welcome all dissenting views as long as they are about the movies themselves and not personal attacks. The one thing I will not tolerate is postings which are nothing but personal attacks and character assassination. Remember what I always say "Don't hate the player, hate Dane Cook"

Okay, maybe one personal attack but that's it.